On the analysis of protein self-association by sedimentation

velocity analytical ultracentrifugation

Peter Schuck

*

Protein Biophysics Resource,Division of Bioengineering and Physical Science,ORS,OD,National Institutes of Health,Bethesda,MD 20892,USA

Received 5 February 2003

Abstract

Analytical ultracentrifugation is one of the classical techniques for the study of protein interactions and protein self-association.

Recent instrumental and computational developments have signiﬁcantly enhanced this methodology.In this paper,new tools for the

analysis of protein self-association by sedimentation velocity are developed,their statistical properties are examined,and consid-

erations for optimal experimental design are discussed.A traditional strategy is the analysis of the isotherm of weight-average

sedimentation coeﬃcients s

w

as a function of protein concentration.From theoretical considerations,it is shown that integration of

any diﬀerential sedimentation coeﬃcient distribution cðsÞ,ls-g

ðsÞ,or gðs

Þ can give a thermodynamically well-deﬁned isotherm,as

long as it provides a good model for the sedimentation proﬁles.To test this condition for the gðs

Þ distribution,a back-transform

into the original data space is proposed.Deconvoluting diﬀusion in the sedimentation coeﬃcient distribution cðsÞ can be advan-

tageous to identify species that do not participate in the association.Because of the large number of scans that can be analyzed in the

cðsÞ approach,its s

w

values are very precise and allow extension of the isotherm to very low concentrations.For all diﬀerential

sedimentation coeﬃcients,corrections are derived for the slowing of the sedimentation boundaries caused by radial dilution.As an

alternative to the interpretation of the isotherm of the weight-average s value,direct global modeling of several sedimentation

experiments with Lamm equation solutions was studied.For this purpose,a new software SEDPHAT is introduced,allowing the

global analysis of several sedimentation velocity and equilibrium experiments.In this approach,information from the shape of the

sedimentation proﬁles is exploited,which permits the identiﬁcation of the association scheme and requires fewer experiments to

precisely characterize the association.Further,under suitable conditions,fractions of incompetent material that are not part of the

reversible equilibrium can be detected.

2003 Elsevier Science (USA).All rights reserved.

Keywords:Protein interactions;Reversible associations;Lamm equation;Sedimentation equilibrium

It has become increasingly obvious that reversible

interactions of proteins are among the fundamental

principles that govern their role and organization.Re-

versible self-association is one of the more intricate,yet

ubiquitous modes of interactions.Self-association is

frequently coupled to heterogeneous protein–protein

interactions and often represents an integral part of the

reaction mechanism.This highlights the importance of

methods that allow the characterization of the thermo-

dynamic properties of self-associating proteins in solu-

tion.Among the classical techniques of physical

biochemistry for studying protein association is analyt-

ical ultracentrifugation [1,2] (for recent reviews,see,e.g.,

[3–8]).In the 1990s,the technique has experienced a

renaissance (see,e.g.,[8–12]),largely due to the ability to

study reversible interactions in solution and the in-

creasing interest in protein interactions.

The present paper is concerned with two sedimenta-

tion velocity approaches

—

the method of isotherms of

weight-average sedimentation coeﬃcients and the anal-

ysis of the shape of the sedimentation boundary.They

focus on diﬀerent aspects of the experiment and have

evolved in parallel.To understand their relationship,it

is of interest to follow their historical development.Al-

ready in the 1930s,evidence for reversible protein in-

teractions measured by sedimentation velocity was

reported [1].Following were more systematic studies of

Analytical Biochemistry 320 (2003) 104–124

www.elsevier.com/locate/yabio

ANALYTICAL

BIOCHEMISTRY

*

Fax:1-301-480-1242.

E-mail address:pschuck@helix.nih.gov.

0003-2697/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Science (USA).All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0003-2697(03)00289-6

the concentration dependence of the sedimentation

coeﬃcient,interpreted in the context of protein self-as-

sociation.These include,for example,studies of a-chy-

motrypsin [13,14],insulin at low pH [15],casein [16],

hemoglobin [17],and others [2].In parallel,the theo-

retical framework of sedimentation velocity of self-as-

sociating systems was rapidly developed.Fromthe work

of Tiselius [18],it was known that in moving boundary

transport experiments no resolution of boundaries will

occur if the species are in a rapid equilibrium compared

to the rate of migration,in which case a weight-average

migration velocity will be observed.In the 1950s,

Baldwin [19] has shown that the migration of the second

moment position of the sedimentation boundary corre-

sponds to the weight-average s value of the solute

composition in the plateau region,which was related

to the chemical equilibrium (via the mass action law)

between monomeric and oligomeric species by Oncley

et al.[15] and Steiner [20].

With regard to the shapes of the sedimentation

boundary,Gilbert [21] examined the ideal case of negli-

gible diﬀusion and fast chemical rates.He quantitatively

predicted the features of such ‘‘ideal’’ boundaries and

found qualitative diﬀerences between monomer and di-

mer and higher self-association schemes.Examples for

the application of Gilbert theory are the self-association

of a-chymotrypsin [22] and b-lactoglobulin [23].It was

also applied by Frigon and Timasheﬀ [24,25] in the de-

tailed analysis of the ligand-induced self-association of

tubulin,which also included hydrodynamic models of the

oligomers (a topic reviewed by Cann [26]).Since then,the

analysis of protein self-association by the concentration-

dependent weight-average sedimentation coeﬃcients,

sometimes combined with hydrodynamic models and

qualitative interpretation of the boundary shape,has

been applied in many studies (for example,[27–33] and

others;for a recent review of this approach,see [34]).

As pointed out by Fujita [35],the diﬀusion-free ap-

proximation of Gilbert theory represents a limitation in

the interpretation of actual data.This was overcome

with numerical solutions of the Lamm equation (the

transport equation describing the coupled sedimentation

and diﬀusion process [36]) [37–42],which was also ex-

tended to kinetically controlled self-associations and

applied to hetero-associations [43–46].Numerical or

approximate analytical Lamm equation solutions cou-

pled with nonlinear regression can now be used rou-

tinely to model experimental data [40,41,47–51].

Algebraic noise decomposition permits direct modeling

of the interference optical data by calculating the time-

invariant and radial-invariant signal oﬀsets [52].This

allows one to take full advantage of the excellent signal-

to-noise ratio of the laser interferometry detection sys-

tem and,similarly,to perform separate experiments in

each sector of the centrifugal cell when using the ab-

sorbance scanner [53].In recent years,some experience

with modeling Lamm equation solutions for self-asso-

ciating proteins to experimental data has been gained

[32,41,54–59].While the importance of globally model-

ing experiments from diﬀerent loading concentrations

has become clear,a more systematic study of useful

experimental conditions,analogous to those available

for sedimentation equilibrium studies (for example,[60–

63 and others]) is still lacking.

Modern computational techniques have also led to

considerable improvements in the determination of

weight-average sedimentation coeﬃcients via diﬀerential

sedimentation coeﬃcient distributions,which have the

potential to discriminate diﬀerent sedimenting species.

In 1992,Staﬀord showed how an apparent sedimenta-

tion coeﬃcient distribution gðs

Þ can be calculated from

a transformation of the time-derivative of the sedimen-

tation proﬁles [64,65].This approach allows one to ex-

tract information from many scans at once and due to

the use of pairwise diﬀerencing,is well adapted to the

time-invariant noise structure of the interferometric

detection system.It has been widely used and was re-

viewed in the context of weight-average s values by

Correia [34].More recently,it was shown how an ap-

parent sedimentation coeﬃcient distribution ls-g

ðsÞ can

be calculated directly fromleast-squares modeling of the

sedimentation proﬁles,permitting higher precision

through the use of an increased data basis,wider dis-

tributions,and more general application [66].Sedimen-

tation coeﬃcient distributions cðsÞ with signiﬁcantly

higher resolution can be achieved through direct mod-

eling and deconvolution of diﬀusional broadening of a

complete set of sedimentation proﬁles [67–69].In gen-

eral,diﬀerential sedimentation coeﬃcient distributions

are particularly powerful for more complex protein in-

teraction processes.Recent examples include the ligand-

induced self-association of tubulin [58,70],amyloid

formation [71],entanglement of amyloid ﬁbers [72],and

others [33,54,73,74].

Despite the obvious utility of the sedimentation co-

eﬃcient distributions,some theoretical and practical

aspects still have to be examined.For example,it is

unclear how they relate to a thermodynamically well-

deﬁned weight-average sedimentation coeﬃcient and

from which experimental data sets they may be derived.

In this regard,the ls-g

ðsÞ and cðsÞ distributions are of

particular interest as they apply Bayesian principles such

as maximum entropy regularization for selecting the

most parsimonious distribution consistent with the raw

data.Also,the increased precision of the experimental

sedimentation data warrants a more detailed study of

the eﬀect of boundary deceleration caused by the radial

dilution of the sample in the sector-shaped ultracentri-

fuge cell and how this applies to the diﬀerent sedimen-

tation coeﬃcient distributions.

These topics are addressed in the present paper.

It analyzes and compares the two major strategies for

P.Schuck/Analytical Biochemistry 320 (2003) 104–124 105

characterizing protein self-association by modern sedi-

mentation velocity,which are the determination of an

isotherm of weight-average sedimentation coeﬃcients as

a function of protein concentration and global nonlinear

regression of the sedimentation data with Lamm equa-

tion models.A practical example of the latter approach

will be published in the context of the biophysical

characterization of the self-association of gp57A of the

bacteriophage T4 [59].Several new tools are introduced

for both strategies.Although the present work focuses

on the analysis of protein self-association,most of the

conclusions will also apply to the study of heteroge-

neous protein interactions (after accounting for diﬀerent

signal contributions of the diﬀerent species).

Theory and modeling

Weight-average sedimentation coeﬃcients for concentra-

tion-dependent components

In this section,ﬁrst,the deﬁnition and theoretical

relationships underlying weight-average sedimentation

coeﬃcients s

w

are recapitulated.This will lead to a

new deﬁnition of an ‘‘eﬀective’’ concentration c

for

interpreting s

w

ðc

Þ of rapidly equilibrating concentra-

tion-dependent systems when s

w

is derived from sedi-

mentation coeﬃcient distributions.It will also lead to

the result that s

w

can be obtained by integration of

the recently described diﬀerential sedimentation coeﬃ-

cient distributions cðsÞ and ls-g

ðsÞ.Emphasis is given to

the experimental conditions required for the practical

application.

The evolution of the concentration distribution

throughout the sector-shaped cell for a single ideally

sedimenting species with sedimentation coeﬃcient s and

diﬀusion coeﬃcient D is described by the Lamm equa-

tion [36]:

@c

@t

¼

1

r

@

@r

sx

2

r

2

c

Dr

@c

@r

:ð1Þ

For a sedimenting boundary that exhibits a plateau,i.e.,

a vanishing concentration gradient @cðr

p

Þ=@r ¼ 0 at a

plateau radius value r

p

(nonstandard loading conﬁgu-

rations are excluded),the multiplication of Eq.(1) with r

and integration over the radial coordinate from the

meniscus r

m

to the plateau at r

p

gives

d

dt

Z

r

p

r

m

cðr;tÞrdr ¼ sðc

p

Þx

2

r

2

p

c

p

ðtÞ s

w

ðc

p

Þx

2

r

2

p

c

p

ð2Þ

(Eq.(2.229),p.116 in [35]),where sðc

p

Þ is the sedimen-

tation coeﬃcient at the plateau concentration c

p

at r

p

.

As illustrated by Schachman [2] (p.65),the left-hand

side describes the loss of mass of sedimenting material

between the meniscus and the plateau region,due to

transport ﬂux through an imaginary cross section of the

solution column at r

p

.For sedimenting multicomponent

mixtures,this total ﬂux is used to deﬁne the weight-av-

erage sedimentation coeﬃcient s

w

.It should be noted

that this deﬁnition is completely independent of the

boundary shape.Important in practice is that,because

of the vanishing ﬂux at the meniscus,the deﬁnition of s

w

via integration of Eq.(2) does not require the meniscus

region to be depleted,in contrast to the alternate deri-

vation in [3].

It is of theoretical and practical interest to study how

s

w

relates to the displacement of the sedimentation

boundary.According to the second moment method,

the mass balance integral in the deﬁnition of s

w

(l.h.s.of

Eq.(2)) can be expressed by an equivalent boundary

position r

w

of a single nondiﬀusing species with sedi-

mentation coeﬃcient s

w

ðc

p

Þ [2,35],with

r

w

ðtÞ

2

¼ r

2

p

2

c

p

Z

r

p

r

m

cðr;tÞrdr ð3Þ

(Eq.(11) in [2]).An alternative expression for the

weight-average sedimentation coeﬃcient was given by

Fujita (Eq.(2.234) in [35]) and Baldwin [19].In a slight

modiﬁcation,we obtain

s

w

¼ s

w

ðc

p

Þ

¼

1

2x

2

d

dt

log 1

"

2

c

0

r

2

p

Z

r

p

r

m

ðc

0

cðr;tÞÞrdr

#

:ð4Þ

Similar to Eq.(2),in Eq.(4) the weight-average sedi-

mentation coeﬃcient s

w

at the plateau is related to the

total depletion of material between the meniscus and an

arbitrary plateau radius r

p

.This depletion can be cal-

culated directly fromeach scan at diﬀerent times t and is

independent of the boundary shape.The weight-average

sedimentation coeﬃcient is taken at the plateau con-

centration at the time of the scan [19].It should be noted

that Eq.(4) considers only the instantaneous rate of

transport across r

p

and is therefore completely inde-

pendent of the history of the concentration distribution

or the meniscus position.It requires only the transport

at the times considered to be a result of free sedimen-

tation.

For the present purpose of calculating s

w

for a con-

centration-dependent system from sedimentation coef-

ﬁcient distributions (e.g.,cðsÞ [67],ls-g

ðsÞ [66],and

gðs

Þ [64,65]),it is useful to bring Eq.(4) into a diﬀerent

form.The reason is that these sedimentation coeﬃcient

distributions are based on equations that imply the en-

tire sedimentation process from the start of the centri-

fugation experiment,rather than the change in mass

balance only at the time of the scans.This is also true for

the dcdt method to obtain gðs

Þ,as the diﬀerential is

used only to eliminate the constant signal oﬀsets.

Therefore,we integrate Eq.(4) with respect to the time

from 0 to the time T (the time of the scan considered),

which gives

106 P.Schuck/Analytical Biochemistry 320 (2003) 104–124

s

w

¼

1

T

Z

T

0

s

w

ðc

p

ðtÞÞdt

¼

1

2x

2

T

log 1

"

2

c

0

r

2

p

Z

r

p

r

m

ðc

0

cðr;TÞÞrdr

#

:ð5Þ

If the sedimentation coeﬃcient is concentration inde-

pendent,s

w

equals s

w

.For concentration-dependent

sedimentation,however,s

w

is only an apparent weight-

average sedimentation coeﬃcient that,strictly,is not a

constant because the radial dilution changes the plateau

concentration and results in corresponding changes in

the chemical composition [1,35].This also implies a

dependence on the reaction kinetics of the system.

The diﬀerence between Eqs.(4) and (5) can be illus-

trated,for example,with a rapid self-associating

monomer–n-mer system in the limit of an inﬁnite solu-

tion column.Because of the radial dilution,with time

such a system would completely dissociate and the

weight-average sedimentation coeﬃcient s

w

from Eq.(4)

would assume the monomer s value.Nevertheless,if

transforming the boundary position rðtÞ into an appar-

ent s value s

(such as in the g

ðsÞ method [64]),this

transformation would also reﬂect the period when the

molecules migrated as the assembled species.This is

taken into account in Eq.(5).For typical experimental

conditions,radial dilution amounts only to 20–30%,

and corresponding changes in s

w

are generally small.

However,they can be distinctly larger than the mea-

surement error,and the corresponding systematic

changes in s

w

have been noted already by Svedberg and

Pedersen [1].

We suggest an approximate correction for the case

that the change in s

w

ðcÞ is not kinetically limited and can

be approximated over a small concentration range as a

linear function of concentration.In this case,we can

separate s

w

from the time integral in Eq.(5):

s

w

ðTÞ ﬃ s

w

ðc

ðTÞÞ and c

ðTÞ ¼

1

T

Z

T

0

c

p

ðtÞdt:ð6Þ

The average plateau concentration from time 0 to T can

be calculated using the Lammequation in the absence of

concentration gradients,

dc

p

ðtÞ

dt

¼ 2s

w

ðc

p

Þx

2

c

p

;ð7Þ

which leads to

c

ðTÞ ¼

c

0

2x

2

s

w

T

1

e

2x

2

s

w

T

:ð8Þ

This means that for systems that locally approach

chemical equilibrium faster than the time scale of sedi-

mentation,the measured apparent weight-average sedi-

mentation coeﬃcient s

w

from a sample with loading

concentration c

0

is a good approximation of the true

weight-average sedimentation coeﬃcient at a reduced

concentration c

.(For analysis of multiple scans at dif-

ferent T

i

,the average of all c

ðT

i

Þ should be taken).For

slow-equilibrating systems,however,s

w

will reﬂect the

equilibrium composition at loading concentration c

0

.

For systems with unknown kinetics,it is possible to

assign the concentration an uncertainty from c

0

to c

and to analyze the isotherms

w

ðcÞ by treating the c values

as unknowns within these bounds.

It is possible to generalize the above treatment to a

general mixture of k reacting components.In this case,

the Lamm equation can be extended by local reaction

ﬂuxes q

k

[35].One can still deﬁne the weight-average

sedimentation coeﬃcient in a similar way by considering

the evolution of the total concentration

d

dt

Z

r

p

r

m

c

tot

ðr;tÞrdr ¼ x

2

r

2

p

X

k

s

k

c

k;p

þ

Z

X

k

q

k

rdr

s

w

ðc

p

Þx

2

r

2

p

c

p;tot

:ð9Þ

As long as the total signal from the chemical reaction is

conserved (throughout the observed region from me-

niscus to r

p

) it is

P

k

q

k

¼ 0,and the extra termin Eq.(9)

is identically zero.Therefore,we arrive again at a

weight-average sedimentation coeﬃcient

s

w

ðc

k;p

Þ ¼

P

k

s

k

c

k;p

P

k

c

k;p

ð10Þ

that reﬂects only the weighted average of the s values of

the composition at the plateau.This shows that s

w

is not

aﬀected by chemical equilibria or reaction kinetics,ex-

cept to the extent of the problemarising fromdecreasing

plateau concentrations discussed above.

It is current practice to determine the weight-average

sedimentation coeﬃcients not from the mass balance

and integration of the sedimentation boundary,but

from diﬀerential sedimentation coeﬃcient distributions

c

0

ðsÞ,which are deﬁned as a superposition of indepen-

dently sedimenting species

c

tot

ðr;tÞ ¼

Z

c

0

ðs;r;tÞds:ð11Þ

Since the evolution of c

tot

is described by a superposition

of Lamm equations,the deﬁnition of s

w

can be obtained

by extension of Eq.(2),

d

dt

Z

r

p

r

m

c

tot

ðr;tÞrdr ¼ x

2

r

2

p

Z

sc

0

p

ds

s

w

ðc

p

Þx

2

r

2

p

c

p;tot

;ð12Þ

with c

0

p

denoting the diﬀerential sedimentation coeﬃ-

cient distribution at the plateau [2].If each species of the

distribution c

0

ðsÞ sediments independently of concen-

tration,which is assumed in all currently known sedi-

mentation coeﬃcient distributions,it follows that

c

0

p

ðsÞ c

0

ðsÞ and

s

w

ðc

p

Þ ¼

R

c

0

sds

R

c

0

ds

;ð13Þ

P.Schuck/Analytical Biochemistry 320 (2003) 104–124 107

i.e.,the weight-average sedimentation coeﬃcient can be

calculated by integrating the diﬀerential sedimentation

coeﬃcient distribution.

It should be noted that the diﬀusion coeﬃcient does

not occur in Eq.(12),so that the result Eq.(13) is

equally valid for any diﬀerential sedimentation coeﬃ-

cient distributions,independent of diﬀusion.This in-

cludes cðsÞ [67,68],ls-g

ðsÞ [66],and gðs

Þ from dcdt

[64,65].Another consequence of this is the invariance of

the s

w

value obtained from the cðsÞ distribution calcu-

lated with any value of f =f

0

(or other prior knowledge).

The only requirement is that the distribution provides a

good description of mass balance between meniscus and

r

p

,for which a good ﬁt of the sedimentation boundary

(i.e.,ﬁt of the experimentally observed sedimentation

proﬁles) is suﬃcient.Similarly,when modeling sedi-

mentation data of an interacting systemempirically with

a size distribution,a good ﬁt (and identical mass bal-

ance) is also suﬃcient for the s

w

value from Eqs.(12)

and (13) to be identical to the correct weight-average

sedimentation coeﬃcient of the interacting system.

However,s

w

may still depend on the plateau concen-

tration c

p

and represent only an apparent weight-aver-

age sedimentation coeﬃcient s

w

as described above.In

contrast,the integral sedimentation coeﬃcient distribu-

tion G(s) [75] does not lend itself to the mass balance

considerations because it considers the boundary pro-

ﬁles normalized only relative to the plateau level.The

same result holds for the integral sedimentation coeﬃ-

cient distributions G(s) when calculated from the ex-

trapolation of ls-g

ðsÞ to inﬁnite time [68].

Because a large number of scans covering an ex-

tended time period of the sedimentation process can be

analyzed with ls-g

ðsÞ and cðsÞ,and because cðsÞ can be

applied to a variety of experimental conditions and lead

to a high resolution of small species,it is worthwhile to

reconsider the assumptions under which the (apparent)

weight-average sedimentation coeﬃcient was deﬁned.

No depletion at the meniscus is required.In principle,

a solution plateau needs to be established for s

w

to

represent a meaningful quantity,since if there were

concentration gradients,diﬀusion ﬂuxes will artiﬁcially

decrease the s

w

values.On the other hand,if a plateau

can be established in the ﬁrst several scans under con-

sideration,and if the corresponding sedimentation

boundaries are modeled well,extension of the time

range to include later scans will leave the s

w

value in-

variant.Such extension may increase the resolution in

the sedimentation coeﬃcient distribution,for example,

for the identiﬁcation of slowly sedimenting species

contributing to s

w

.However,if the deﬁnition of Eq.(13)

is used for calculating an s

w

value on the basis of a

sedimentation coeﬃcient distribution,the integration

range should be limited to species that do not exhibit

signiﬁcant back-diﬀusion.Otherwise,the corresponding

concentration will be ill-deﬁned and the uncertainty may

become much larger than the range from c

0

to c

indi-

cated above.

In summary,it is shown above that integration of any

of the diﬀerential sedimentation coeﬃcient distributions

can be used to calculate s

w

,under the condition that a

good model of the sedimentation proﬁles is achieved.

For interacting systems,the relevant concentration is

not the plateau concentration.For systems with a slow

kinetics relative to sedimentation,it is the loading con-

centration,while for fast reversible systems it is the ef-

fective time-averaged plateau concentration c

(Eq.(6)).

s

w

is independent of the boundary shape but requires

that the sedimentation process is free of convection for

the entire experiment.The meniscus does not need to be

cleared,and s

w

can be determined from experimental

data that do not exhibit plateaus throughout,but inte-

gration of the sedimentation coeﬃcient distribution over

species that exhibit back-diﬀusion should be avoided for

interacting systems.

Data analysis

For the data analysis based directly on the second

moment,Eqs.(4),(5),and (8) were implemented in the

software SEDFIT (combined with routines extracting a

stable least-squares estimate of c

p

for each scan).For

both the diﬀerential (Eq.(4)) and the integral (Eq.(5))

forms the average values for s

w

are calculated,and the

corresponding radial dilution factors (i.e.,the plateau

concentrations or c

(Eq.(8)) are averaged for all scans

considered in the analysis.

The diﬀerential sedimentation coeﬃcient distributions

cðsÞ [67] and ls-g

ðsÞ [66],which are based on direct

models of the sedimentation data with Lamm equation

solutions with and without the deconvolution of diﬀu-

sion,respectively,were also calculated with SEDFIT.In

brief,in the cðsÞ method the concentration distribution of

a single noninteracting species vðs;D;r;tÞ is calculated by

the Lamm equation (Eq.(1)) for a large number of sedi-

mentationcoeﬃcients ranging froms

min

tos

max

.For eachs

value,the corresponding diﬀusion coeﬃcient is estimated

froma weight-average frictional ratio ðf =f

0

Þ

w

[69] as

DðsÞ ¼

ﬃﬃﬃ

2

p

18p

kTs

1=2

g f =f

0

ð Þ

w

3=2

1

vvq

=

vv

1=2

:

ð14Þ

The best-ﬁt distribution cðsÞ is determined by a linear

least-squares ﬁt to the experimental data aðr;tÞ

aðr;tÞ ﬃ

Z

s

max

s

min

cðsÞvðs;DðsÞ;r;tÞds:ð15Þ

This Fredholm integral equation is stabilized with ad-

ditional constraints derived from maximum entropy or

Tikhonov–Phillips regularization,which provides the

most parsimonious distribution that is consistent with

the available data [69].The extent of regularization is

108 P.Schuck/Analytical Biochemistry 320 (2003) 104–124

scaled by a statistical criterion to ensure that the de-

crease of the ﬁt quality imposed by the constraint is not

signiﬁcant on a one-standard-deviation conﬁdence level.

The value for the weight-average frictional ratio ðf =f

0

Þ

w

is determined iteratively fromthe experimental data by a

nonlinear regression,which also may include the precise

meniscus position of the solution column [68].An

analogous procedure with constant D ¼ 0 is used for

calculating the apparent sedimentation coeﬃcient dis-

tribution ls-g

ðsÞ [66].Corrections for the solvent com-

pressibility are available [42].

The gðs

Þ distributions based on the time-derivative

method were calculated with the software DCDT+ (J.S.

Philo,3329 Heatherglow Ct.,Thousand Oaks,CA) [65].

A transformation of the so calculated gðs

Þ into a direct

model of the sedimentation proﬁles was included as a

function in SEDFIT,by building a step-function model

as described [66] from the data exported from gðs

Þ.To

rebuild the degree of freedom from the diﬀerencing of

pairwise scans in dcdt,the sedimentation model can be

combined with systematic noise calculation as described

[52,68].

The isotherm of the weight-average sedimentation

coeﬃcient for a self-associating system can be written as

[24]

s

w

ðc

tot

Þ ¼

X

i

s

0;i

1 þk

s;i

K

i

c

i

1

K

i

c

i

1

=c

tot

ﬃ

1

1 þk

s

c

tot

X

i

s

0;i

K

i

c

i

1

=c

tot

;ð16Þ

where s

0;i

are the species sedimentation coeﬃcients at

inﬁnite dilution,k

s;i

are their hydrodynamic nonideality

coeﬃcients,and K

i

is the association constant (with

K

1

¼ 1).Because the values of k

s;i

cannot easily be de-

termined separately for each species and may be com-

position dependent,the second equation makes the

assumption that the hydrodynamic nonideality coeﬃ-

cients for all species can,in a ﬁrst approximation,be

described by an average value [24].This will be true at

not too high concentrations,or if the diﬀerent species

are not too dissimilar in shape,or for moderately weak

associations where the largest species dominate the

sedimentation at higher concentration.

Global modeling with the software SEDPHAT

For global modeling,an extension of the software

SEDFIT was programmed.Like SEDFIT,it allows

modeling of experimental sedimentation proﬁles by

direct least-squares modeling of the sedimentation

boundaries,using ﬁnite element solutions of the Lamm

equation with static [39,40,76] and moving [41] frames of

reference,and allowing for algebraic elimination of the

systematic noise [52].For rapidly associating systems,

ﬁnite element solutions of the Lamm equation

@c

@t

¼

1

r

@

@r

s

w

cðrÞð Þx

2

r

2

c

D

g

cðrÞð Þr

@c

@r

ð17Þ

with local weight-average sedimentation coeﬃcients s

w

and gradient-average diﬀusion coeﬃcients D

g

were cal-

culated as described previously [38,41].For Lamm

equation solutions with hydrodynamic repulsive no-

nideality,the local weight-average sedimentation coef-

ﬁcients were multiplied with a factor 1=ð1 þk

s

c

tot

ðrÞÞ

[77],as described in Eq.(16).To allow global modeling

of diﬀerent experiments,there are several signiﬁcant

diﬀerences in the organization of the program.

In SEDPHAT,diﬀerent experiments are organized in

diﬀerent channels,each consisting of one set of sedi-

mentation proﬁles of a certain experiment type.For a

single channel,the data can be either many scans from

the time course of a single sedimentation velocity ex-

periment,a set of sedimentation equilibrium scans from

the same cell obtained at diﬀerent rotor speeds (implying

mass balance),or a single equilibrium scan.Currently,

up to 20 channels can be deﬁned (although this can

be extended).Also stored are the experimental param-

eters such as solution density and viscosity,optical

pathlength,solute extinction coeﬃcient,meniscus,

bottom,and the expected (or measured) noise of data

acquisition.

To generate a global model,a set of sedimentation

proﬁles is calculated using the appropriate sedimenta-

tion model for each channel.Global parameters are s

20

,

D

20

,log K

a

,and/or M values,and the partial-speciﬁc

volume of the solute.In contrast to SEDFIT,the global

parameters are corrected to 20 w values,which are

transformed to each of the experimental conditions with

the Svedberg equation and the usual solvent correction

formulas [1,8,78].Local parameters are,for example,

concentrations,local meniscus and bottom,and/or sys-

tematic noise parameters,and they can be separately

deﬁned for each channel.As global measure of good-

ness-of-ﬁt,the reduced v

2

,v

2

r

,is used,with each exper-

iment weighted with the individual error of data

acquisition.v

2

r

approaches unity for an ideal model [79].

For nonlinear regression,both simplex and Levenberg–

Marquardt algorithms were implemented [80].Error

estimates can be derived through conventional F statis-

tics,by using a covariance matrix,or with Monte Carlo

statistics [80,81].Floating parameters can be any com-

bination of local or global parameters.Local concen-

trations can be deﬁned to be common to a subset of

experiments,permitting the extinction coeﬃcient to be

calculated.Similarly,the meniscus and bottompositions

and/or extinction coeﬃcients can be deﬁned as local

parameters shared by a subset of data channels.If

the partial-speciﬁc volume is treated as a ﬂoating pa-

rameter for experiments at diﬀerent densities,global

analyses analogous to the Edelstein–Schachman tech-

nique [82,83] can be performed.

P.Schuck/Analytical Biochemistry 320 (2003) 104–124 109

Notes on the terminology used

The original raw sedimentation data that consist of

the concentration distributions as a function of radius

and time are referred to as the ‘‘sedimentation proﬁles.’’

Commonly,for large molecules at suﬃcient rotor

speeds,the sedimentation proﬁles form a sedimentation

boundary,which migrates along the centrifuge cell.

Modeling of the sedimentation velocity experiment can

take place by ﬁtting a model (e.g.,the Lamm equation)

to the sedimentation proﬁles.This is sometimes referred

to as a ‘‘direct boundary model.’’ However,to minimize

confusion,in the present communication the term

‘‘model of the sedimentation proﬁle’’ will be used in-

stead of ‘‘boundary model’’ whenever possible.The cðsÞ

distribution is such a ‘‘direct boundary model’’ and

usually provides a good description of the sedimentation

proﬁles (i.e.,the sedimentation boundary),as is the

global ﬁtting of Lamm equation solutions with SED-

PHAT described above.In contrast,the gðs

Þ distribu-

tion is derived from a transformation dcdt of a subset of

the sedimentation proﬁles into a space of apparent

sedimentation coeﬃcients.In this sense,it does not

provide a ‘‘boundary model’’ (a model for the original

sedimentation proﬁles).However,because gðs

Þ and

ls-g

ðsÞ consider the migration of the sedimentation

boundary as if it was only a result of sedimentation,

their shape provides a good description of the boundary

shape (in the space of apparent sedimentation coeﬃ-

cients).Commonly,therefore,the gðs

Þ distribution

from dcdt will reﬂect the boundary shape,but it is not a

boundary model,and,conversely,the cðsÞ distribution

will provide a boundary model,but the shape of cðsÞ has

no direct resemblance to the boundary shape.It should

be noted that both the cðsÞ distribution and the Lamm

equation modeling of the sedimentation proﬁles with

SEDPHAT of course depend on and utilize the shape

information of the sedimentation boundary.Because

ls-g

ðsÞ is derived from a least-squares modeling of the

sedimentation proﬁles,it reﬂects the boundary shape

and at the same time is also a ‘‘direct boundary model.’’

As shown in the present paper,a similar ‘‘boundary

model’’ in the original data space (i.e.,a model for the

sedimentation proﬁles) can also be reconstructed for the

gðs

Þ distribution.From theory,the relevant criterion

for an accurate s

w

value is that it is based on a good

model of the sedimentation proﬁle (‘‘boundary model’’),

whereas the representation of the ‘‘boundary shape’’ is

irrelevant for s

w

.

Results

To explore the diﬀerent analysis strategies for self-

associating protein systems,we ﬁrst simulated sedi-

mentation proﬁles for a hypothetical protein of 100

kDa,with sedimentation coeﬃcients of 5 S and 8 S for

the monomer and dimer,respectively,and a dimeriza-

tion constant of 5 10

5

M

1

(Fig.1).The isotherm of

s

w

ðcÞ is shown in Fig.1 based on the known parameters

(solid line),and based on the integration of the diﬀer-

ential sedimentation coeﬃcient distributions gðs

Þ,

ls-g

ðsÞ,and cðsÞ.For the gðs

Þ analysis,the maximum

number of scans was used,that gave an estimated Mw

limit larger than the dimer molar mass.Some minor

variations were observed dependent on the interval of

scans.The ls-g

ðsÞ method allows a larger number of

scans to be incorporated,resulting in slightly better

precision,especially for data with low signal-to-noise

ratio.

Fig.2 shows the cðsÞ distributions for the diﬀerent

concentrations.Because of the deconvolution of diﬀu-

sion in the cðsÞ method,features can be visible in the cðsÞ

distribution that are not apparent from the qualitative

inspection of the shape of the experimentally observed,

diﬀusion broadened sedimentation boundary.This is the

basis for the high resolution of cðsÞ,which would lead to

baseline-resolved peaks for stable mixtures of monomer

and dimer,even under conditions where they may not

develop two separate boundaries [69].However,the

deconvolution of diﬀusion is based on the model with

independent species but does not take into account the

additional boundary broadening resulting from the

chemical reaction.Therefore,the application of cðsÞ to a

rapidly reversible system results in ‘‘apparent’’ distri-

butions that have broad,concentration-dependent peaks

at positions intermediate to the monomer and dimer s

values (Fig.2).(In practice,the concentration depen-

dence of the peak position is a clear indication that the

reaction takes place on the time scale of sedimentation;

in contrast,for a slow reversible system,the peaks

would be sharper and at constant positions,and only the

relative peak heights would vary with concentration.) It

should be noted that the peak positions do not coincide

with the weight-average s value.However,as outlined

under Theory and modeling,the weight-average value

obtained from integration of the cðsÞ distribution

provides a thermodynamically well-deﬁned s

w

value,

because it provides a good description of the sedimen-

tation proﬁles (rms deviation close to the noise) and

therefore is suitable for mass balance considerations.

Consistent with this theoretical expectation,the so ob-

tained s

w

values do coincide very well with the theoret-

ical isotherm (circles in Fig.1).

In this context,it is also interesting to note that a

single-species model generally does not ﬁt the data well.

For example,for the data at 10 lM,a single-species ﬁt

results in an rms error of 44% above the noise,with

signiﬁcant systematic deviations visible in a bitmap

representation of the residuals [68].As outlined under

Theory and modeling,for a precise determination of s

w

,

it is important how well the sedimentation models ﬁt the

110 P.Schuck/Analytical Biochemistry 320 (2003) 104–124

experimental data.This makes an ad hoc application of

a single species Lamm equation model not a good ap-

proach to determine s

w

.For the gðs

Þ distribution,the

goodness-of-ﬁt is diﬃcult to assess,because as a data

transformation it does not provide a measure for how

much the ﬁnal distribution reﬂects the original data.

However,it is possible to use the calculated gðs

Þ dis-

tribution and back-transform them into an equivalent

Fig.2.Sedimentation coeﬃcient distributions cðsÞ from the analysis of the sedimentation proﬁles of the simulated monomer–dimer system.Con-

centrations are 0.2 lM (solid line),0.5 lM (dashed line),1lM (dash-dotted line),2 lM (dash-dot-dotted line),5 lM (dotted line),10 lM (+),and

20lM(circles).To facilitate comparison,the cðsÞ distributions were normalized.

Fig.1.Isotherm of weight-average sedimentation coeﬃcient as a function of concentration,evaluated by diﬀerent methods.The underlying sedi-

mentation proﬁles were simulated for a protein of 100 kDa,with sedimentation coeﬃcients of 5 S and 8 S for the monomer and dimer,respectively,

and a dimerization constant of 5 10

5

M

1

.Finite element solutions of the Lamm equation [41] were calculated for concentrations of 0.2,0.5,and

1lM (total protomer concentration) with an extinction coeﬃcient of 7 10

5

M

1

cm

1

,for concentrations of 2,5,and 10lM with an extinction

coeﬃcient of 1 10

5

M

1

cm

1

,and for a concentration of 20 lMwith an extinction coeﬃcient of 5 10

4

M

1

cm

1

,corresponding to the detection

of the protein in 12-mm centerpieces with the absorbance optical system at wavelengths of 230,280,and 250 nm,respectively.Sedimentation was

simulated for a 10 mm solution column at 20 C and at rotor speeds of 50,000 rpm in time intervals of 300 s.To all data,0.01 OD normally dis-

tributed noise was added.An example for the sedimentation proﬁles is shown in the inset for 5lM(every second scan shown).As a reference,the

theoretically expected isotherm s

w

ðcÞ is shown as solid line.Weight-average s values from integration of the diﬀerential sedimentation coeﬃcient

distribution are shown for gðs

Þ (crosses),ls-g

ðsÞ (triangles),and cðsÞ (circles).

P.Schuck/Analytical Biochemistry 320 (2003) 104–124 111

direct model of the sedimentation proﬁles using step-

functions of nondiﬀusing species (as are used in the

ls-g

ðsÞ method).Fig.3 shows the sedimentation proﬁles

at 10lM,together with the back-transformed models of

the sedimentation proﬁles.When using an appropriately

small number of scans,as judged by the recommended

maximum molar mass in dcdt (Mw

max

¼ 224 kDa),a

good description of the sedimentation data is achieved

and a good value for s

w

is obtained.When the recom-

mended number of scans is exceeded (Mw

max

¼ 26 kDa),

broadening of the back-transformed boundaries occurs,

which for a large number of scans can be quite signiﬁ-

cant.In the case shown in Fig.3 (dashed line),the

rms error was 3.4-fold the noise of the data,and the s

w

value was found to be 2.6% below the theoretical value.

This result suggests that the rms error of back-trans-

formed boundaries could be used as an alternative,di-

rect method for estimating the maximum number of

scans to be included in a gðs

Þ analysis.In the present

context,it conﬁrms that a faithful representation of

the original sedimentation data is a crucial criterion

for the determination of precise weight-average sedi-

mentation coeﬃcients.

Since the theory suggests that the sedimentation co-

eﬃcient distributions with deconvoluted diﬀusion ef-

fects,cðsÞ,may be integrated to determine s

w

,we have

studied conditions where the additional resolution can

be advantageous.Fig.4 shows cðsÞ proﬁles of our sim-

ulated model system in the presence of 20% contami-

nation with a small species that does not participate in

the self-association.This species is visible in the new

peak at 3 S.If such a peak can be clearly identiﬁed as a

contaminating species not participating in the self-as-

sociation,it can be excluded from the integration range.

The resulting weight-average s values for the interacting

systemremained within <0.5%of the values obtained in

the absence of the contaminating species.Clearly,since

the distributions ls-g

ðsÞ and gðs

Þ reﬂect only the

shapes of the sedimentation boundary,they do not

provide the resolution to locate the correct integration

limits.In contrast,diﬀusional deconvolution of cðsÞ can

resolve the contaminating species.Under some condi-

tions for the lowest concentration data,we found that

the peak of the small 3 S species appeared at a slightly

higher s value (data not shown).This reﬂects a known

property of the maximum entropy regularization:under

some conditions,nearby peaks can ‘‘attract.’’ This

happens only for the lowest concentration because of

the very low signal-to-noise ratio and the corresponding

high bias from the regularization.Interestingly,despite

this fact,the weight-average sedimentation coeﬃcient is

not aﬀected,which reﬂects the overruling importance of

the quality of representation of the original sedimenta-

tion boundaries (which by design are unchanged by the

regularization,within the predeﬁned conﬁdence level).

A closer look at the isotherms of s

w

for the diﬀerent

methods plotted against the loading concentration in-

dicates that the obtained values are slightly lower than

the expected isotherm for the system underlying the

simulation (a section of the isotherm is expanded in

Fig.5,full circles and squares).This is consistent with

the theory,which predicts radial dilution to lower the s

w

values.The use of concentration values based on aver-

age dilution during the entire sedimentation process (Eq.

(8)) provides a small,but eﬀective correction for the

radial dilution (open circles).It was found to increase

Fig.3.Simulated sedimentation proﬁles of the model systemat 10 lM(circles,every third data point of scans 7 to 14 shown) and back-transforms of

the gðs

Þ distributions calculated by the dcdt method.To account for the diﬀerentiation in the gðs

Þ transform,the back-transforms include the

degrees of freedomfromtime-invariant noise.Dashed lines indicate the back-transformed boundaries fromgðs

Þ when using too many scans (7–14),

while the solid line is based on a gðs

Þ analysis of scans 11–14.

112 P.Schuck/Analytical Biochemistry 320 (2003) 104–124

the precision by 1%,which is signiﬁcant compared to

the precision of up to 0.1% that can be obtained in

sedimentation velocity experiments.For comparison,

the diﬀerential second moment method requires the

average plateau concentrations at the time of the scans,

which are signiﬁcantly diﬀerent from the loading con-

centrations (Fig.5,open triangles).We conﬁrmed that

the latter method is completely independent of the prior

history of the sedimentation process and of the location

of the meniscus position (data not shown).(A disad-

vantage of this method,however,is that the baseline

signal has to be known.)

Fig.6A illustrates why it is important to have the

most precise isotherm values possible:Shown are the

s

w

ðcÞ data in comparison with isotherms assuming dif-

ferent values for the binding constant and the monomer

and dimer s values.It should be noted that the best-ﬁt

analysis of the s

w

ðcÞ data results in parameters very close

to those underlying the simulations (solid line).How-

ever,it is apparent from Fig.6 that isotherms with very

diﬀerent binding constants diﬀer surprisingly little from

the calculated s

w

ðcÞ data and that small random or

systematic errors in the s

w

ðcÞ data can therefore lead to

large errors in the calculated binding parameters.This

example also illustrates that a large concentration range

is crucial.The model system was designed to simulate

approximately the largest concentration range ordinar-

ily possible without introducing nonideal sedimentation

at high concentrations.In contrast,Fig.6B shows the

isotherm obtained for a weaker monomer–dimer self-

association studied at concentrations including the

range where nonideal sedimentation is highly relevant.

The negative concentration dependence at the higher

concentrations broadens the isotherm and leads to the

decrease of s

w

.These data can be analyzed analogously

if the s

w

ðcÞ isotherms consider the hydrodynamic sðcÞ

dependence s ¼ s

0

=ð1 þk

s

cÞ.A moderate correlation of

the parameter values for k

s

,K

A

,and s

2

was observed.In

any case,however,for the analysis of the s

w

ðcÞ isotherm,

it is highly desirable to introduce independent infor-

mation,for example,on the monomer sedimentation

coeﬃcient,the equilibrium constant,or limits for the

monomer and dimer sedimentation coeﬃcients (or their

ratio) derived from hydrodynamic models.

In this regard,the error estimates for the s

w

ðcÞ data

are of great importance.Shown in Fig.6A are those

obtained from DCDT+ for the gðs

Þ method (solid

squares and error bars).They are determined by the

signal-to-noise ratio of the data (which are dependent on

the wavelength for the simulated absorbance experi-

ments (Fig.1)) and by the maximum number of scans

that can be used in the gðs

Þ analysis.(It should be noted

that the simulated data have a conservative estimate of

0.01 ODfor the experimental noise,which is on the order

but may slightly exceed that commonly observed.) In the

absence of independent information on the monomer

sedimentation coeﬃcient,it would be highly desirable to

incorporate experiments at lower concentration,but the

lower signal-to-noise ratio would result in unacceptably

large error bars for the corresponding s

w

value.To ad-

dress the lack of an error estimate in the software

SEDFITfor the s

w

values fromintegration of the ls-g

ðsÞ

and cðsÞ distributions,the Monte Carlo simulations

in SEDFIT were expanded to allow evaluation of the

Fig.4.Sedimentation coeﬃcient distributions cðsÞ fromsimulated data

of the model system in the presence of a contamination with a smaller

species not participating in the association (Mw ¼ 50;000 kDa,s ¼ 3 S,

20% of the loading concentration).Shown are the normalized cðsÞ

distributions at concentrations of 0.2 lM (solid line),2lM (dashed

line),and 20lM(dotted line).For comparison,the gðs

Þ distributions

are calculated at the same concentrations and for clarity are oﬀset

by 0.4.

Fig.5.Isotherms of the weight-average sedimentation coeﬃcient ver-

sus concentration obtained by the diﬀerent methods.Shown are a

section of the isotherm for s

w

ðc

load

Þ from the gðs

Þ method (solid

squares) and cðsÞ (solid circles),the isotherm s

w

ðc

Þ from the cðsÞ

method using the corrected eﬀective concentration according to Eq.(8)

(open circles),the corresponding values obtained from the integral

second moment method (Eq.(5)) (crosses),and isotherm values from

the diﬀerential second moment method (Eq.(4)) plotted against av-

erage plateau concentration (open triangles).For comparison,the

theoretically expected isotherm is shown as a solid line.

P.Schuck/Analytical Biochemistry 320 (2003) 104–124 113

statistics of the s

w

values.These calculations can be

performed relatively fast,since the two most time-con-

suming steps in the algebraic formalism of the distribu-

tion method are the calculation of the model functions

for each s value and the normal matrix [67],which do not

change for the Monte Carlo iterations.The resulting

error estimates for the data shown in Fig.6 were <0.005

S (including degrees of freedomfor time-invariant noise)

and on the average a factor 10–40 times smaller than

those from g

ðsÞ,reﬂecting the signiﬁcantly larger data

basis in the cðsÞ analysis.This can be very signiﬁcant,in

particular for the low concentration and low signal-to-

noise data,and allows extending the concentration range

of the isotherm.This is indicated as triangles in Fig.6,

which show the s

w

values obtained at concentrations as

low as 0.025 lM (under conditions equivalent to those

simulated in Fig.1,assuming detection at 230 nm).

Despite the small signal-to-noise ratio of only 2:1 in the

Fig.6.(A) Analysis of the s

w

ðcÞ data and comparison with diﬀerent isotherms.The weight-average s values as obtained from the analysis of the

sedimentation velocity data simulated for the model systemwith s

1

¼ 5 S,s

2

¼ 8 S,and K

A

¼ 5 10

5

M

1

(Fig.1).Data fromthe analysis with gðs

Þ

(squares) and with the cðsÞ method using the eﬀective concentrations fromEq.(8) (circles).Error bars on the squares are estimates fromDCDT+ and

reﬂect the diﬀerent signal-to-noise ratio in the sedimentation data.Simulated sedimentation data with low signal-to-noise ratio at concentrations of

0.1,0.05,and 0.025lM(assuming detection at 230 nm,analogous to conditions in Fig.1) were analyzed only with the cðsÞ method (triangles),and

error bars were calculated with Monte Carlo simulations.Isotherms are calculated for the correct parameter values of s

1

¼ 5 S,s

2

¼ 8 S,and

K

A

¼ 5 10

5

M

1

(solid line) and for several sets of incorrect parameters:s

1

¼ 4 S,s

2

¼ 7:68 S,and K

A

¼ 1:94 10

5

M

1

(dashed line),s

1

¼ 3 S,

s

2

¼ 7:56 S,and K

A

¼ 4:56 10

5

M

1

(dash-dotted line),s

1

¼ 2 S,s

2

¼ 8:27 S,and K

A

¼ 8:26 10

5

M

1

(dash-dot-dotted line),and s

1

¼ 5:5 S,

s

2

¼ 8:35 S,and K

A

¼ 1:68 10

4

M

1

(dotted line).(B) Self-association in the presence of hydrodynamic nonideal sedimentation.Sedimentation for

the same monomer–dimer system was simulated,but with 25-fold weaker association (K

A

¼ 20;000/M) and with a nonideality coeﬃcient k

s

of 0.009

ml/mg (approximating spherical particles).The sedimentation proﬁles were simulated mimicking experimental conditions from the interference

optical data acquisition system.s

w

values were determined fromintegration of the cðsÞ sedimentation coeﬃcient distributions (circles).(To achieve an

acceptable model of the proﬁles of nonideal sedimentation at high concentrations,the number of ﬁtted scans was reduced;due to the boundary

steepening from nonideality,higher best-ﬁt apparent f =f

0

values were observed.) Also shown are the theoretical s

w

isotherms in the presence (solid

line) and absence (dashed line) of hydrodynamic nonideality.

114 P.Schuck/Analytical Biochemistry 320 (2003) 104–124

lowest concentration data,40 scans with 40,000 data

points can be included in the analysis,resulting in rela-

tively small statistical errors in the derived s

w

values.It

was observed,however,that at signal-to-noise ratios <5,

both maximum entropy and Tikhonov–Phillips regu-

larization of the distribution introduce a bias in the s

w

values with a magnitude of the order of the statistical

errors.This systematic error can be easily eliminated by

removing the regularization.For data at higher signal-

to-noise ratios,this error is negligible.

As an alternative approach,global direct modeling of

the sedimentation boundaries at diﬀerent concentrations

by solutions of the Lamm equations for fast reversible

self-association was explored.Conceptually,this ap-

proach has a drawback in that it requires additional

information on the diﬀusion coeﬃcients of all species.

Also,the basic problem of correlations between the

sedimentation coeﬃcients and the equilibrium constants

remains.However,one can use information on known

molar masses of the monomer and oligomers to cal-

culate these diﬀusion coeﬃcients with the Svedberg

equation [1].Beyond the possibility to identify the self-

association scheme (see Discussion),the promise of this

approach lies in the shapes of the sedimentation proﬁles,

which report on the sedimentation over a large con-

centration range in a single experiment,and the use of

the rotor speed as an additional experimental parameter

that balances the relative extent of sedimentation and

diﬀusion.This approach is explored in the following by

application to the model system.

First,we compared the Lamm equation ﬁts to the

individual sedimentation velocity experiments.None of

the data sets individually contained enough information

to identify the correct parameters.For example,when

the monomer sedimentation coeﬃcient s

1

was held

constant at the wrong value of 2 S while the other pa-

rameters s

2

and K

A

were allowed to ﬂoat,the impostor

model produced an increase in the rms deviation for the

0.2,2,and 20 lM data sets individually by only 2%.

However,when taken together in a global analysis,an

average increase of 30% was observed,with clearly

systematic residuals.This illustrates the advantage of

global analysis.Sometimes,it was diﬃcult to converge

to the global best-ﬁt,because the data at high concen-

tration with their relatively steep gradients can initially

dominate the optimization process and cause the pa-

rameters to fall into a local minimum.Therefore,we

found it frequently advantageous to adhere to the fol-

lowing sequence:First,a local ﬁt was performed to each

data set,and the local concentration parameters were

Table 1

Estimated errors fromMonte Carlo simulations for global or local ﬁts to sedimentation velocity experiments at diﬀerent concentrations,rotor speeds,

and combinations thereof

Data set at concentration (lM) Rotor speed (1000 rpm) rðlogK

A

Þ 100 rðs

1

Þ (0.01 S) (s

2

) (0.01 S)

0.2 50 3.8 (0.40) 1.5 (0.95) 15 (5.9)

2 50 2.0 (0.24) 3.4 (1.6) 2.3 (1.5)

10 50 0.74 2.5 0.28

20 50 1.1 (0.11) 4.0 (1.2) 0.23 (0.26)

0.2 and 20 50 0.39 0.48 0.24

0.2 and 20 with 10% incompetent monomer 50 0.48 0.33 0.28

0.2,2,and 20 50 0.37 0.53 0.19

0.2,0.5,2,10,and 20 50 0.24 0.35 0.15

0.2 20 2.7 9.5 72

2 20 1.8 4.3 2.6

20 20 0.6 3.1 0.41

0.2 and 20 20 3.2 3.9 1.2

0.2 20 and 50 3.8 1.5 14

2 20 and 50 1.4 2.8 1.8

20 20 and 50 0.52 2.0 0.23

0.2 and 20 20 and 50 0.28 0.41 0.18

0.2 and 20 10 and 50 0.38 0.48 0.21

0.2,2,and 10 equilibrium 10 (eq) 1.2

— —

2 equilibrium and velocity 10 (eq),50 (vel) 1.1 2.2 2.0

0.2,2,and 10 equilibrium,10 velocity 10(eq),50 (vel) 0.64 2.5 0.33

Sedimentation equilibrium data are included where indicated (see Fig.7).Local concentrations and baselines,global monomer and dimer

sedimentation coeﬃcients,and the equilibrium constant were treated as unknowns.Values in parentheses indicate the error of determining the

sedimentation coeﬃcients from a known binding constant (fourth and ﬁfth columns),and the error of the binding constant from known sedi-

mentation coeﬃcients (third column),respectively.Sedimentation velocity data at 50,000 rpm are based on the parameters described in Fig.1.

Velocity data at 10,000 and 20,000 rpmwere simulated with scan time intervals of 1500 and 6000 s,respectively,under otherwise identical conditions.

Simulations with incompetent monomer were performed as superposition of an interacting and a noninteracting sedimentation model.Error

estimates are derived as the limits of the central 68%of parameter values from500 simulated data sets,each modeled with algebraic optimization of

the linear parameters and simplex optimization of the nonlinear parameters.

P.Schuck/Analytical Biochemistry 320 (2003) 104–124 115

ﬁxed.Then,the low-concentration data were modeled,

using estimates for s

1

,s

2

,and K

A

(derived from local

analyses or s

w

isotherms),and the monomer s value was

ﬁxed.Next,a sequence of global ﬁts was performed with

ﬂoating s

2

and K

A

,ﬂoating s

1

,s

2

,and K

A

,and ﬁnally

with ﬂoating local concentrations,s

1

,s

2

,and K

A

.

For comparison of the global ﬁts to diﬀerent com-

binations of experimental concentrations,Tables 1 and 2

list the error estimates derived from Monte Carlo

analysis,with and without treating the monomer molar

mass as an unknown,respectively.Several tendencies

are apparent:For the sedimentation coeﬃcients,obvi-

ously conditions must be established to populate the

dimer to determine s

2

.Generally,data at higher con-

centration have more information,which is a conse-

quence of these experiments spanning a broader

concentration range.Global analysis of data at diﬀerent

concentrations is crucial for high precision in the asso-

ciation constant and the monomer s value.However,

including more intermediate concentrations does not

result in a very signiﬁcant gain,which is again a con-

sequence of each experiment already spanning a large

concentration range due to the dilution in the sedi-

mentation boundary (i.e.,due to the boundary shape

information).Lower rotor speeds are in some cases

slightly better for determining the binding constant but

signiﬁcantly worse for measuring the sedimentation co-

eﬃcients.The combination of data from diﬀerent rotor

speeds can be beneﬁcial,but the gains are not very

substantial.For the most parsimonious experimental

design,it appears that a very high and a very low con-

centration at a high rotor speed are best (Table 1).

Under these conditions,the monomer molar mass can be

estimated from the sedimentation data,without signiﬁ-

cant loss of precision in the other parameters (Table 2).

Obviously,if prior knowledge is available,much

better precision is obtained (Table 1).For example,in-

dependent information on the sedimentation coeﬃcients

may be obtained sometimes through site-directed mu-

tagenesis,binding of small ligands that stabilize or de-

stabilize the oligomeric states,or by application of

diﬀerent solvent conditions that aﬀect the thermody-

namics or the kinetics of the self-association equilibrium

[24,29,30,33,84,85].Further information may be derived

from hydrodynamic modeling of the monomer and oli-

gomer,either through simple geometric models or uti-

lizing a crystal structure [86,87].Remarkably,the most

precise determination of the binding constant was ob-

tained in single experiments at moderate and high con-

centrations when the monomer and dimer s values were

known (Table 1).Vice versa,signiﬁcantly higher preci-

sion in the sedimentation coeﬃcients is possible if the

equilibrium constant is known.Prior knowledge on the

association constants may be available from sedimen-

tation equilibrium experiments (such as shown in Fig.7

for our model system).In this case,however,from a

statistical perspective,the global analysis of sedimenta-

tion velocity and sedimentation equilibrium is a much

Table 2

Estimated errors when the monomer molar mass is treated as an unknown parameter

Data set at concentration (lM) Rotor speed (1000 rpm) r(Mw) (kDa) rðlogK

A

Þ 100 r(s

1

) (0.01 S) r(s

2

) (0.01 S)

0.2 50 1.5 4.5 17 21

2 50 2.4 3.2 4.3 8.7

10 50 0.48 1.2 2.6 0.60

20 50 0.64 3.1 8.6 0.51

0.2 and 20 50 0.31 0.63 0.62 0.36

0.2 and 20 with 10% incompetent

monomer

50 0.34 0.53 0.35 0.35

0.2,2,and 20 50 0.25 0.41 0.48 0.23

0.2,0.5,2,10,and 20 50 0.17 0.28 0.37 0.17

0.2 20 1.7 9.0 2.7 49

2 20 1.2 4.2 6.3 4.9

20 20 0.36 2.3 6.7 0.52

0.2 and 20 20 0.23 0.94 1.0 0.57

0.2 20 and 50 1.2 7.0 1.2 25

2 20 and 50 0.73 2.3 3.2 3.1

20 20 and 50 0.28 1.8 5.0 0.33

0.2 and 20 20 and 50 0.95 2.0 0.51 0.31

0.2 and 20 10 and 50 0.19 0.46 0.49 0.26

0.2,2,and 10 equilibrium 10 (eq) 0.52 3.0

— —

2 equilibrium and velocity 10 (eq),50 (vel) 0.52 2.2 3.3 2.8

0.2,2,and 10 equilibrium,10

velocity

10 (eq),50 (vel) 0.23 1.1 2.6 0.37

Monte Carlo simulations for global or local ﬁts to sedimentation velocity experiments at diﬀerent concentrations,rotor speeds,and combinations

thereof are performed as described in Table 1.

116 P.Schuck/Analytical Biochemistry 320 (2003) 104–124

more straightforward approach.The SEDPHAT soft-

ware is designed to incorporate both thermodynamic

and hydrodynamic data into a global model.As com-

pared to the separate model,such a global approach can

improve the precision of both the equilibrium constant

and the sedimentation coeﬃcients (Tables 1 and 2).The

combination of velocity and equilibrium data is partic-

ularly useful when the molar mass is unknown (Table 2).

Interestingly,the detection of fractions of material

incompetent to participate in the reversible equilibrium,

such as incompetent monomer,or irreversibly aggre-

gated dimer,can be very straightforward by global

modeling of the sedimentation boundaries (Table 1).As

illustrated in Fig.8,incompetent monomer results in a

clearly formed additional sedimentation boundary in the

high-concentration data,while incompetent dimer

would form a clearly visible additional fast sedimenta-

tion boundary in the low-concentration data (data not

shown).Therefore,the detection of the incompetent

fractions does not interfere with the analysis of the as-

sociating system.Although detection of incompetent

populations is also possible by sedimentation equilib-

rium analysis [88],the separation of species in sedi-

mentation velocity combined with direct modeling of the

boundaries provides a unique tool to detect and con-

sider incompetent species.In principle,other contami-

nating species can be taken into consideration similarly,

by modeling as a superposition with an additional,

noninteracting component.

It has long been known that the shape of the sedi-

mentation boundaries has information on the nature of

the association scheme [21,89,90].To illustrate this

property,Fig.9 shows a comparison of sedimentation

proﬁles for stable dimer,monomer–dimer,monomer–

trimer,monomer–tetramer,and monomer–dimer–tet-

ramer self-association.In all cases,the concentration

was assumed to be ﬁvefold above the characteristic

equilibrium dissociation constants.It is apparent that

with increasing association order (1-2,1-3,to 1-4) the

boundary assumes an increasingly bimodal shape,with a

steeper leading and a longer trailing component.This

feature can also be qualitatively diagnosed by a trans-

formation of a data subset,such as gðs

Þ or ls-g

ðsÞ.For

quantitative analysis in the context of direct modeling of

the sedimentation proﬁles,we have studied how well the

association schemes can be distinguished,given un-

known sedimentation coeﬃcients,binding constants,

and noisy experimental data.For example,the mono-

mer–dimer data shown in Fig.9B (at 10lM,with 0.01

OD random noise added) can be modeled by the

monomer–trimer scheme (such as Fig.9C) with a best-ﬁt

v

2

r

of 14 % above the expected value (or 7 % if the

monomer molar mass was allowed to ﬂoat to 68kDa).

This may not be enough,in practice,to unambiguously

identify the scheme.In a global analysis of data at 0.2,2,

and 20lM,the best-ﬁt results in an increase of the v

2

r

of

43% (log

10

ðK

A13

Þ ¼ 11:0 with s

1

¼ 5:5 S and s

3

¼ 7:9

S),but only 12% if the monomer mass is treated as an

unknown (converging to 71 kDa,with log

10

ðK

A13

Þ ¼

Fig.7.Simulated sedimentation equilibrium data of the monomer–

dimer self-association model system (Fig.1).Sedimentation proﬁles

were calculated at a rotor speed of 10,000 rpm,at concentrations of

0.2lM (with an extinction coeﬃcient of 7 10

5

M

1

cm

1

;crosses),

2lM (with an extinction coeﬃcient of 1 10

5

M

1

cm

1

;triangles),

and 10lM(with an extinction coeﬃcient of 1 10

5

M

1

cm

1

;circles).

Normally distributed noise of 0.005 OD was added.For the global

analysis,data points were given a 25-fold higher weight to compensate

for the fewer number of data points per experiment.

Fig.8.Sedimentation boundaries of the monomer–dimer self-associ-

ation model system at 50,000 rpm in the presence (top) and absence

(bottom) of incompetent monomer at a concentration of 10% total

loading concentration.

P.Schuck/Analytical Biochemistry 320 (2003) 104–124 117

11:2,s

1

¼ 5:5 S,and s

3

¼ 7:8 S).Slightly larger devia-

tions are found if data at diﬀerent rotor speeds are

incorporated in the global ﬁt.Beyond the v

2

of the ﬁt,

the returned parameter values for the sedimentation

coeﬃcients are closer together in the impostor model,

suggesting an implausible hydrodynamic shape of the

trimer compared to that of the monomer.Thus,global

modeling of the sedimentation proﬁles can be very

helpful for the determination of the association scheme,

in particular if the molar mass of the monomer is

known.

Hydrodynamic nonideality can also be taken into

account in the global model.Finite element solutions of

the Lamm equation with both self-association and

hydrodynamic repulsive nonideality can be obtained in

the formalism of locally concentration-dependent sedi-

mentation coeﬃcients [38,41,77].The negative concen-

tration dependence of the sedimentation coeﬃcient at

higher concentrations results in a characteristic steep-

ening and reduction of the diﬀusional spread of the

sedimentation boundaries [91],which is distinct fromthe

boundary shapes caused by self-association.This pro-

vides suﬃcient information to determine the nonideality

coeﬃcient k

s

with good precision as an additional pa-

rameter in the global model (data not shown).

Discussion

In the present paper,we have proposed several new

tools for analyzing protein self-association by sedimen-

tation velocity.There are two general approaches:the

traditional calculation of weight-average sedimentation

coeﬃcients as a function of chemical composition fol-

lowed by a separate isotherm analysis and the direct

modeling of the sedimentation proﬁle from multiple

experiments in a global analysis.Both can be combined

with other available prior knowledge,including binding

constants or s values of the interacting species derived

from ultracentrifugation experiments with protein vari-

ants,or under modiﬁed conditions,or from hydrody-

namic consideration of simple geometric association

models and/or a crystal structure [86,87].However,the

approaches for sedimentation analysis diﬀer in their

practical requirements for sample purity and experi-

mental conditions.The former approach is valid for any

association model,including hetero-associations,but

the latter requires a speciﬁc association model.

First,based on the theoretical foundation of the

second moment deﬁnition of a weight-average sedi-

mentation coeﬃcient s

w

,we have shown that integration

of any of the currently used diﬀerential sedimentation

coeﬃcient distributions gðs

Þ,ls-g

ðsÞ,and cðsÞ can lead

to a well-deﬁned isotherm s

w

ðcÞ,which can be used to

characterize the thermodynamics of the protein inter-

action.While the gðs

Þ distribution has long been used

for this purpose,the present analysis showed for the ﬁrst

time that also the newer approaches,in particular cðsÞ,

which use regularization and diﬀusional deconvolution

techniques,are fully consistent with the rigorous deﬁ-

nition of s

w

.Their utility and advantages in comparison

with other approaches will be discussed below.

An important condition for calculating well-deﬁned

s

w

values is that the sedimentation proﬁles are faithfully

described by the distribution.Although this condition

may seem trivial,it raises several interesting points.

With regard to the gðs

Þ distribution,since it is based on

a data transformation [64],the quality of its represen-

tation of the original sedimentation proﬁles cannot be

easily assessed.It is well-known that the numerical ap-

proximation of dc/dt [64],which is a central computa-

Fig.9.Shapes of the sedimentation boundary for diﬀerent self-asso-

ciation schemes.(A) A stable dimer with 8 S;(B) A monomer–dimer

equilibrium with s

1

¼ 5 S,s

2

¼ 8 S,log

10

ðK

A12

Þ ¼ 5:699 (half-dissoci-

ation at 2 lM);(C) A monomer–trimer equilibrium with s

1

¼ 5 S,

s

3

¼ 10 S,log

10

ðK

A13

Þ ¼ 11:398 (half-dissociation at 2lM);(D) A

monomer–tetramer equilibrium with s

1

¼ 5 S,s

4

¼ 12 S,

log

10

ðK

A14

Þ ¼ 17:097 (half-dissociation at 2lM);(E) A monomer–di-

mer–tetramer equilibrium with s

1

¼ 5 S,s

2

¼ 8 S,s

4

¼ 12 S,

log

10

ðK

A12

Þ ¼ 5:699,log

10

ðK

A14

Þ ¼ 17:097 (half-dissociation for both

steps at 2lM).Simulation parameters are analogous to those in the

model system of Fig.1,at concentration 10lM,and at constant time

intervals of 300 s.

118 P.Schuck/Analytical Biochemistry 320 (2003) 104–124

tional step in this approach for eliminating TI

1

noise

components of the raw data (see below),can produce

distortions and artiﬁcial broadening in the gðs

Þ distri-

bution [65].In a rectangular cell approximation,this

eﬀect has been described as convolution of gðs

Þ with a

hyperbola segment [66].Semiempirical rules have been

published [65] for the selection of a suitable data subset

that avoids artiﬁcial broadening of the gðs

Þ distribu-

tion.However,because the gðs

Þ distribution is based on

a data transformation,the question how artiﬁcial

broadening relates to the original data has not been

asked.In the present paper,we have introduced a back-

transformation of gðs

Þ into the original data space.

Since gðs

Þ is computed for a discrete set of s values,one

can reconstruct the corresponding sedimentation

boundaries as a superposition of a large number of step-

functions [66].The degrees of freedom that were elimi-

nated in the forward-transformby the diﬀerentiation dc/

dt can be restored by algebraically calculating the best-

ﬁt TI noise components [52],which are unambiguously

determined for any model of the sedimentation proﬁles

[68].(This step makes the additional assumption that the

TI noise is truly constant,but after extensive application

of systematic noise decomposition,little evidence for

instability is found.) As a result,the back-transform can

be used to verify quantitatively how well the original

sedimentation data are represented by the gðs

Þ distri-

bution.In this way the gðs

Þ approach can be changed

from a ‘‘data transform’’ into a model for the sedi-

mentation proﬁles that produces residuals of the ﬁt,

which can be compared with other sedimentation

models,thereby closing a gap in the relationship be-

tween the diﬀerent approaches for interpreting sedi-

mentation velocity data.As shown in Fig.3,a gðs

Þ

analysis using a high number of scans that led to arti-

ﬁcial distortion of gðs

Þ modeled the data very poorly,

while the data were well-described when not exceeding

the recommended number of scans.This shows that the

rms error of the back-transform could be used as a

criterion for the selection of the appropriate data subset.

Interestingly,when applied to the analysis of experi-

mental interference optical sedimentation proﬁles,we

observed that the back-transform of gðs

Þ calculated by

DCDT+ under recommended conditions produced es-

timates of the TI noise that were virtually identical to

those from other direct sedimentation models (data not

shown).In the present context,the faithful representa-

tion of the original sedimentation boundaries is critical

for determining thermodynamically well-deﬁned weight-

average sedimentation coeﬃcients.

The sedimentation coeﬃcient distributions ls-g

ðsÞ

and cðsÞ are already direct models of the sedimentation

proﬁles,utilizing the recently introduced method for

including the time-invariant and radial-invariant noise

components of the sedimentation data in the model [52].

The question of representation of the sedimentation

proﬁles is therefore more straightforward.For the ap-

parent sedimentation coeﬃcient distribution ls-g

ðsÞ,

the limiting factor is that diﬀusion is not taken into

account.For example with the data shown in Fig.3,the

ls-g

ðsÞ distribution can provide a reasonably good

sedimentation model (rms error 0.016) over the com-

plete range shown,but the quality of ﬁt will decrease if

more scans are included (data not shown).Because

boundary broadening by diﬀusion is taken into account

in the cðsÞ method,there is no limit apparent,and the

complete set of experimental scans can be modeled well

and included in the analysis.Clearly,a larger number of

scans translates into more precise estimates for s

w

.

Both the ls-g

ðsÞ and the cðsÞ methods utilize regu-

larization,which apply Bayesian principles to favor dis-

tributions that are more consistent with our prior

expectation of smoothness or high informational en-

tropy.This canhave asigniﬁcant inﬂuence onthe shape of

the calculated distribution,and it is an important ques-

tion howthis will inﬂuence the calculated weight-average

sedimentation coeﬃcients.To estimate this inﬂuence,the

sole criterion is,again,the quality of the sedimentation

model.Since the parsimony prior to the regularization is

scaled such that it does not decrease the quality of ﬁt by

more than a predeﬁned conﬁdence level (usually one

standard deviation),the errors translated in the weight-

average sedimentation coeﬃcients cannot exceed the

statistical limits.Accordingly,from the analysis of our

model data,we found the bias fromthe regularization to

aﬀect the s

w

values only within a magnitude equal or

smaller than the statistical errors from the noise in the

sedimentation data.As a consequence,regularization is

of concern and should be switched oﬀ only when deter-

mining s

w

values fromdata with extremely low signal-to-

noise ratio (e.g.,smaller than ﬁve).

Because the analysis of the s

w

isothermcan be very ill-

conditioned (Fig.6),the ability to cover a large con-

centration range and the precision of the s

w

values are

very important.In the present paper,we have imple-

mented Monte Carlo simulations to calculate error

estimates for the s

w

values from integration of cðsÞ.As

shown in Fig.6,the errors are signiﬁcantly smaller than

those estimated for the gðs

Þ method,largely probably

due to the several times larger data sets that can be in-

cluded in cðsÞ.Noise ampliﬁcation in the gðs

Þ method

in the pairwise subtraction of scans may also be a factor.

With cðsÞ loading concentrations that produce signals as

small as two or three times the noise can be easily an-

alyzed.This is of signiﬁcance in particular for the data at

lower concentrations,where the signal-to-noise ratio is

relatively low,but where the isotherm would contain

very signiﬁcant information on the s value of the

smallest species (Fig.6).

1

Abbreviation used:TI,time-invariant.

P.Schuck/Analytical Biochemistry 320 (2003) 104–124 119

Another interesting feature when using the cðsÞ dis-

tribution for determining s

w

values is the deconvolution

of diﬀusional broadening.As has been pointed out

before [67,68],the deconvolution is based on the as-

sumption of noninteracting species,and for interactions

that are reversible on the time scale of the sedimentation

experiment,the peaks in the cðsÞ distribution do not

correspond to the s values of sedimenting species.This is

illustrated in Fig.2,which also suggests that even for

concentrations 10-fold lower and higher than K

D

one

can only very cautiously interpret the cðsÞ curves,for

example,to extrapolate starting values for the monomer

and oligomer s values for the isotherm analysis.(This is

in contrast to slowly reequilibrating systems,where the

peaks of the cðsÞ curves do reﬂect the oligomeric species

present [54,73].) In any case,the diﬀusional deconvolu-

tion can be utilized for the detection of species and

contaminants that do not participate in the association,

provided that they sediment at rates outside the range of

s values of the associating protein and its complexes.

This is shown in Fig.4,where the superposition of cðsÞ

distributions at diﬀerent concentrations reveals a con-

stant and separate 3 S species,which can be excluded

from the integration range of s

w

.

A general concern when using the cðsÞ distribution is

that it is based on an approximation for the frictional

ratios f =f

0

of noninteracting sedimenting components

and the assumption that these can be suﬃciently well

approximated by a weight-average ðf =f

0

Þ

w

.In contrast,

no such approximation appears necessary in the analysis

with the gðs

Þ or ls-g

ðsÞ methods.However,both gðs

Þ

and ls-g

ðsÞ are apparent sedimentation coeﬃcient dis-

tributions of hypothetical nondiﬀusing (and noninter-

acting) particles,which is equivalent to the limit of

inﬁnite frictional ratios for all species [68].Although the

estimate of a weight-average ðf =f

0

Þ

w

in the cðsÞ method

may not be precise for all species,f =f

0

is not a very

shape-sensitive parameter and it has been shown that

the peak positions of cðsÞ are largely insensitive to the

value of ðf =f

0

Þ

w

[68].Allowing for diﬀusion of the spe-

cies with ﬁnite f =f

0

values is more realistic,provides a

better model of the sedimentation proﬁles,and permits

extending the data set to be modeled from a small data

subset in gðs

Þ and ls-g

ðsÞ to the complete sedimenta-

tion process,thereby increasing both the resolution of

the distribution and the precision of the s

w

values.As

shown under Theory and modeling,the only require-

ment for a precise s

w

value is a good model of the sed-

imentation proﬁles,which can usually be assured by the

optimization of ðf =f

0

Þ

w

through nonlinear regression of

the experimental data.To this extent,the assumption of

ðf =f

0

Þ

w

is not critical for the determination of s

w

.On the

other hand,if a good ﬁt cannot be achieved,for example

when analyzing strongly concentration-dependent non-

ideal sedimentation with repulsive interactions,the re-

striction of the data subset and/or the use of the

apparent sedimentation coeﬃcient distributions gðs

Þ

and ls-g

ðsÞ,which represent only the overall boundary

shape,appears advantageous.

A second important element for generating isotherm

data s

w

ðcÞ,after determining precise s

w

values with any

method,is the assignment of the correct concentration

values.It is well known that the sedimentation process

slows due to signiﬁcant radial dilution [1] and that,for

reversibly interacting systems,the loading concentration

is not the correct concentration.The theoretical analysis

shows that,perhaps contrary to common expectation,

the plateau concentration is also not correct,if the dis-

tribution is derived from any of the established diﬀer-

ential sedimentation coeﬃcient distributions.The reason

for this is that the sedimentation coeﬃcient distributions

are based on equations that integrate the entire sedi-

mentation process,fromthe start of the centrifuge to the

measurement of the boundary position.Therefore,the

time-average of the radial dilution that the boundary

has experienced during the whole process has to be ta-

ken into consideration.The proposed correction factors

amount to as much as 10%in concentration,or 1 %in

the s values.This may seem a small factor,but it is

signiﬁcantly larger than the experimental error in s and

can be relevant,considering the diﬃculties of the sub-

sequent analysis of the isotherm (Figs.5 and 6).

We have also implemented a diﬀerential second mo-

ment method (Eq.(3)) which does not imply any prior

history.In this form,the relevant concentrations are the

plateau concentrations (averaged only between the scans

used in the analysis).This approach has the practical

advantage that it can be applied to data from experi-

ments with initial convection or temperature instability

or where the meniscus cannot be located,as long as the

sedimentation proﬁles considered for analysis reﬂect free

sedimentation.It shares these properties with the tech-

nique of using an experimental scan to initialize a Lamm

equation model [40],but the derived s

w

values from the

diﬀerential second moment method are more general

and applicable to any reactive or nonreactive multi-

component system.

In summary,the above methods allow the deter-

mination of precise weight-average sedimentation

coeﬃcients and eﬀective concentrations to form the

isotherm s

w

ðcÞ.In our experience,the diﬀusion decon-

voluted sedimentation coeﬃcient distribution cðsÞ usu-

ally gave the best results.The s

w

ðcÞ can then be subjected

to a separate thermodynamic analysis with a model for

the interaction,with binding constants and usually with

monomer and oligomer sedimentation coeﬃcients as

unknowns.

A second major family of methods is the direct

modeling of the sedimentation proﬁles with numerical

solutions of the Lamm equation for fast reversible self-

association.Global modeling of diﬀerent sedimentation

velocity experiments is not new;it has been applied,for

120 P.Schuck/Analytical Biochemistry 320 (2003) 104–124

example,to the study of nonideal sedimentation in

complex solvents [77] or for the characterization of

multiple independent species of a viral protein [73],and

it is related to the global modeling of time-diﬀerence

data for heterogeneous interactions [49].However,while

increasing computational power makes it possible to

readily apply this tool,so far no analysis of the prop-

erties and optimal experimental conditions for the ap-

plication of global direct sedimentation modeling has

been published.In the present paper,we have intro-

duced a new software platform,SEDPHAT,for the

global analysis of hydrodynamic and thermodynamic

data from sedimentation velocity,sedimentation equi-

librium,and dynamic light-scattering experiments.Al-

though not discussed here,it permits very ﬂexible

characterization of noninteracting species.The main

goal in the present context was to provide a compre-

hensive analysis of the potential for analyzing protein

self-association.

A central aspect of this approach is that the sedimen-

tation proﬁles contain information on the complete iso-

therm up to the loading concentration.In addition,as

many data points can be included as in the cðsÞ analysis

discussed above.For example,in our simulated model

data that mimics the signal-to-noise ratio typically

achieved with the absorption optics,a single experiment

at approximately ﬁvefold K

D

gives surprisingly good

precision in the derived parameters.Signiﬁcant im-

provement can be achieved already with the combination

of an experiment at very low and very high loading con-

centrations (Table 1).Clearly,muchfewer concentrations

are required to determine the binding constants and the s

values of the monomer and oligomers than with the

analysis of ans

w

isotherm.Also,the monomer molar mass

canbe readilydeterminedwiththis approach.It shouldbe

noted that the presented global Lamm equation model

requires that the reaction kinetics is fast compared to the

sedimentation.This may be knownfromother techniques

or may be studied fromthe concentration androtor speed

dependence of the peak positions of cðsÞ.

Global direct modeling of the sedimentation proﬁles

has several other remarkable properties.It has been long

known that the boundary shape is speciﬁc for the dif-

ferent association schemes.For example,Gilbert [21,89]

has predicted by theoretical considerations in the ab-

sence of diﬀusion that the sedimentation boundaries

exhibit increasing asymmetry and higher steepness of the

leading edge for higher-order associations.This clearly

distinguishes rapid from slow self-association equilibria

[54] (Fig.9).Similar boundary distortions with stronger

boundary deceleration appear in analytical zone centri-

fugation [92,93] (data not shown).So far,the reverse

problem,whether the association scheme can be un-

iquely identiﬁed with direct modeling of the sedimenta-

tion proﬁles,given noisy experimental data has not been

examined.When examining the quality of the ﬁt of our

simulated monomer–dimer system with an imposter

monomer–trimer model,we found that a single sedi-

mentation experiment may not contain enough data to

unambiguously distinguish the two.With global mod-

eling of several experiments at diﬀerent concentrations,

however,the association scheme was much better de-

termined.A practical application of this is the multistep

self-association of gp57A of the bacteriophage T4,

which was analyzed by sedimentation velocity and other

biophysical methods [59].In these studies,global mod-

eling of the sedimentation boundaries provided the most

convincing evidence for the determination of the asso-

ciation scheme.

Another advantage is the ability to identify incompe-

tent species.Because monomers or oligomers that do not

participate in the association separate as independent

species and can form a separate boundary,their consid-

eration does not signiﬁcantly inﬂuence the characteriza-

tion of the association.This may be highly useful,for

example,where stable covalently linked oligomers can

occur inadditiontothe reversible ones [94],or where some

of the protein may be partially unfolded and incompetent

to associate [88,95].It is possible to identify the contam-

ination with incompetent species also by sedimentation

equilibrium [88] (for example in an apparent concentra-

tion dependence of the estimate of the association con-

stant).However,because the competent and incompetent

species of the same oligomer do contribute to the sedi-

mentationequilibriumsignal in the same way,they canbe

distinguished only after analysis of a large experimental

data base.Incomparison,their hydrodynamic separation

in sedimentation velocity can be even qualitatively ap-

parent in a single experiment.

Finally,an important feature of the global direct

modeling of the sedimentation proﬁles is that it can be

extended to a global analysis of sedimentation equilib-

rium and velocity data.This can be useful,in particular,

to combine partial information from either approach.

An open problem when combining data sets from dif-

ferent techniques is determining their relative weight.

One could argue that a purely statistical weighting

according to statistical noise of the data points is not

optimal,since it does not take into account the diﬀerent

robustnesses of the experiments against imperfections

leading to systematic errors.A limitation of the global

analysis of experiments at diﬀerent rotor speeds is a

possible pressure eﬀect,which in some cases may lead to

inconsistent binding constants for the diﬀerent experi-

ments.Partial-volume changes of proteins upon oligo-

merization have been observed occasionally at pressures

accessible to the analytical ultracentrifuge [96,97],but

are usually visible at higher pressures [2].

In summary,we have further explored known

approaches and developed several new tools for two

diﬀerent general strategies for the analysis of protein

self-association by sedimentation velocity.The route via

P.Schuck/Analytical Biochemistry 320 (2003) 104–124 121

the concentration dependence of the weight-average

sedimentation coeﬃcients followed by isotherm analysis

has the advantage that any impurities or aggregates that

are not part of the interacting system can be excluded

from the analysis,if they can be hydrodynamically

separated.The diﬀusion deconvoluted sedimentation

coeﬃcient distribution cðsÞ is particularly well suited to

this approach,as it allows the widest concentration

range and has the highest precision among the sedi-

mentation coeﬃcient distributions.Conversely,the

strategy of global modeling of the sedimentation proﬁles

allows utilizing the largest data sets,requires fewer ex-

periments,and permits the identiﬁcation of the associ-

ation scheme,because the information fromthe shape of

the sedimentation proﬁles is fully exploited.However,

consideration of all sedimenting species is necessary,

which makes this method currently practical only with

highly pure samples.In the future,it may be possible to

partially eliminate this drawback by a hybrid approach,

combining a sedimentation model for a speciﬁc solution

component with a continuous sedimentation coeﬃcient

distribution describing species sedimenting at diﬀerent

rates.

Acknowledgments

I thank Drs.Allen Minton and Jacob Lebowitz for

their discussions and critical reading of the manuscript.

References

[1] T.Svedberg,K.O.Pedersen,The Ultracentrifuge,Oxford Uni-

versity Press,London,1940.

[2] H.K.Schachman,Ultracentrifugation in Biochemistry,Academic

Press,New York,1959.

[3] G.Rivas,W.Staﬀord,A.P.Minton,Characterization of heter-

ologous protein–protein interactions via analytical ultracentrifu-

gation,Methods 19 (1999) 194–212.

[4] J.Liu,S.J.Shire,Analytical ultracentrifugation in the pharma-

ceutical industry,J.Pharm.Sci.88 (1999) 1237–1241.

[5] F.Arisaka,Applications and future perspectives of analytical

ultracentrifugation,Tanpakushitsu Kakusan Koso 44 (1999)

82–91.

[6] T.M.Laue,W.F.I.Staﬀord,Modern applications of analytical

ultracentrifugation,Annu.Rev.Biophys.Biomol.Struct.28

(1999) 75–100.

[7] P.Schuck,E.H.Braswell,in:J.E.Coligan,A.M.Kruisbeek,D.H.

Margulies,E.M.Shevach,W.Strober (Eds.),Current Protocols in

Immunology,Wiley,New York,2000,pp.18.8.1–18.8.22.

[8] J.Lebowitz,M.S.Lewis,P.Schuck,Modern analytical ultracen-

trifugation in protein science:a tutorial review,Protein Sci.11

(2002) 2067–2079.

[9] H.K.Schachman,in:S.E.Harding,A.J.Rowe,J.C.Horton

(Eds.),Analytical Ultracentrifugation in Biochemistry and Poly-

mer Science,Royal Society of Chemistry,Cambridge,1992,pp.

3–15.

[10] T.M.Schuster,J.M.Toedt,New revolutions in the evolution of

analytical ultracentrifugation,Curr.Opin.Struct.Biol.6 (1996)

650–658.

[11] P.Hensley,Deﬁning the structure and stability of macromolecular

assemblies in solution:the re-emergence of analytical ultracentrif-

ugation as a practical tool,Structure 4 (1996) 367–373.

[12] W.F.Staﬀord,Sedimentation velocity spins a new weave for an

old fabric,Curr.Opin.Biotechnol.8 (1997) 14–24.

[13] G.W.Schwert,The molecular size and shape of the pacreatic

proteases.Sedimentation studies on chymotrypsinogen and

on alpha- and gamma-chymotrypsin,J.Biol.Chem.179 (1949)

655–664.

[14] V.Massey,W.F.Harrington,B.S.Hartley,Certain physical

properties of chymotrypsin and chymotrypsinogen using the

depolarization of ﬂuorescence technique,Disc.Faraday Soc.20

(1955) 24–32.

[15] J.L.Oncley,E.Ellenbogen,D.Gitlin,F.R.N.Gurt,Protein–

protein interactions,J.Phys.Chem.56 (1952) 85–92.

[16] P.H.von Hippel,D.F.Waugh,Casein:Monomers and polymers,

J.Am.Chem.Soc.77 (1955) 4311–4319.

[17] E.O.Field,A.G.Ogston,Boundary spreading in the migration of

a solute in rapid dissociation equilibrium.Theory and its

application to the case of human hemoglobin,Biochem.J.60

(1955) 661–665.

[18] A.Tiselius,The moving-boundary method of studying the

electrophoresis of proteins,Nova Acta Regia Soc.Sci.Upsal.

Ser.IV 7 (1930) 1.

[19] R.L.Baldwin,Sedimentation coeﬃcients of small molecules:

Methods of measurement based on the refractive-index gradient

curve.The sedimentation coeﬃcient of polyglucose A,Biochem.J.

55 (1953) 644–648.

[20] R.F.Steiner,Reversible association processes of globular proteins.

V.The study of associating systems by the methods of macromo-

lecular physics,Arch.Biochem.Biophys.49 (1954) 400–416.

[21] G.A.Gilbert,Disc.Faraday Soc.20 (1955) 68–71.

[22] M.S.N.Rao,G.Kegeles,An ultracentrifuge study of the

polymerization of alpha-chymotrypsin,J.Am.Chem.Soc.80

(1958) 5724–5729.

[23] S.N.Timasheﬀ,R.Townend,Molecular interactions in beta-

lactoglobulin.V.The association of the genetic species of beta-

lactoglobulin below the isoelectric point,J.Am.Chem.Soc.83

(1961) 464–469.

[24] R.P.Frigon,S.N.Timasheﬀ,Magnesium-induced self-association

of calf brain tubulin.II.Thermodynamics,Biochemistry 14 (1975)

4567–4573.

[25] R.P.Frigon,S.N.Timasheﬀ,Magnesium-induced self-association

of calf brain tubulin.I.Stoichiometry,Biochemistry 14 (1975)

4559–4566.

[26] J.R.Cann,Measurements of protein interactions mediated by

small molecules using sedimentation velocity,Methods Enzymol.

48 (1978) 242–248.

[27] L.K.Hesterberg,J.C.Lee,Self-association of rabbit muscle

phosphofructokinase at pH 7.0:stoichiometry,Biochemistry 20

(1981) 2979–2980.

[28] S.J.Harris,R.C.Williams,J.C.Lee,Self-association of Esche-

richia coli DNA-dependent RNA polymerase core enzyme,

Biochemistry 34 (1995) 8752–8762.

[29] J.L.Cole,Characterization of human cytomegalovirus protease

dimerization by analytical ultracentrifugation,Biochemistry 35

(1996) 15601–15610.

[30] H.B.Lowman,W.J.Fairbrother,P.H.Slagle,R.Kabakoﬀ,J.Liu,

S.Shire,C.A.H

eebert,Monomeric variants of IL-8:Eﬀects of side

chain substitutions and solution conditions upon dimer forma-

tion,Protein Sci.6 (1997) 598–608.

[31] S.Lorbert,J.W.Ingram,B.T.Hill,J.J.Correia,A comparison of

thermodynamic parameters for vinorelbine- and vinﬂunin-induced

tubulin self-association by sedimentation velocity,Mol.Pharma-

col.53 (1998) 908–915.

[32] J.J.Correia,B.M.Chacko,S.S.Lam,K.Lin,Sedimentation

studies reveal a direct role of phosphorylation in Smad3:Smad4

122 P.Schuck/Analytical Biochemistry 320 (2003) 104–124

homo- and hetero-trimerization,Biochemistry 40 (2001) 1473–

1482.

[33] M.Buisson,E.Valette,J.F.Hernandez,F.Baudin,C.Ebel,P.

Morand,J.M.Seigneurin,G.J.Arlaud,R.W.Ruigrok,Functional

determinants of the Epstein–Barr virus protease,J.Mol.Biol.311

(2001) 217–228.

[34] J.J.Correia,Analysis of weight average sedimentation velocity

data,Methods Enzymol.321 (2000) 81–100.

[35] H.Fujita,Foundations of Ultracentrifugal Analysis,Wiley,New

York,1975.

[36] O.Lamm,Die Diﬀerentialgleichung der Ultrazentrifugierung,

Ark.Mat.Astr.Fys.21 (2) (1929) 1–4.

[37] J.L.Bethune,G.Kegeles,Countercurrent distribution of chem-

ically reacting systems.III.Analogs of moving boundary

electrophoresis and sedimentation,J.Phys.Chem.65 (1961)

1761–1764.

[38] D.J.Cox,Computer simulation of sedimentation in the ultracen-

trifuge.IV.Velocity sedimentation of self-associating solutes,

Arch.Biochem.Biophys.129 (1969) 106–123.

[39] J.-M.Claverie,Sedimentation of generalized systems of interact-

ing particles.III.Concentration-dependent sedimentation and

extension to other transport methods,Biopolymers 15 (1976) 843–

857.

[40] P.Schuck,C.E.MacPhee,G.J.Howlett,Determination of

sedimentation coeﬃcients for small peptides,Biophys.J.74

(1998) 466–474.

[41] P.Schuck,Sedimentation analysis of noninteracting and self-

associating solutes using numerical solutions to the Lamm

equation,Biophys.J.75 (1998) 1503–1512.

[42] P.Schuck,A model for sedimentation in inhomogeneous media.

II.Compressibility of aqueous and organic solvents.Biophys.

Chem.(2003),in press.

[43] J.R.Cann,D.C.Oates,Theory of electrophoresis and sedimen-

tation for some kinetically controlled interactions,Biochemistry

12 (1973) 1112–1119.

[44] J.R.Cann,Kinetically controlled mass transport of associating–

dissociating macromolecules,Methods Enzymol.48 (1978)

248–270.

[45] J.R.Cann,in:T.M.Schuster,T.M.Laue (Eds.),Modern

Analytical Ultracentrifugation,Birkhauser,Boston,1994,pp.

171–188.

[46] W.F.Staﬀord,in:T.M.Schuster,T.M.Laue (Eds.),Modern

Analytical Ultracentrifugation,Birkhauser,Boston,1994,pp.

119–137.

[47] J.S.Philo,An improved function for ﬁtting sedimentation velocity

data for low molecular weight solutes,Biophys.J.72 (1997)

435–444.

[48] J.Behlke,O.Ristau,Molecular mass determination by sedimen-

tation velocity experiments and direct ﬁtting of the concentration

proﬁles,Biophys.J.72 (1997) 428–434.

[49] W.F.Staﬀord,Time diﬀerence sedimentation velocity analysis of

rapidly reversible interacting systems:Determination of equilib-

rium constants by global non-linear curve ﬁtting procedures,

Biophys.J.74 (2) (1998) A301.

[50] P.Schuck,D.B.Millar,Rapid determination of molar mass in

modiﬁed Archibald experiments using direct ﬁtting of the Lamm

equation,Anal.Biochem.259 (1998) 48–53.

[51] B.Demeler,J.Behlke,O.Ristau,Determination of molecular

parameters from sedimentation velocity experiments:Whole

boundary ﬁtting using approximate and numerical solutions of

the Lamm equation,Methods Enzymol.321 (2000) 36–66.

[52] P.Schuck,B.Demeler,Direct sedimentation analysis of interfer-

ence optical data in analytical ultracentrifugation,Biophys.J.76

(1999) 2288–2296.

[53] S.R.Kar,J.S.Kinsbury,M.S.Lewis,T.M.Laue,P.Schuck,

Analysis of transport experiment using pseudo-absorbance data,

Anal.Biochem.285 (2000) 135–142.

[54] M.A.Perugini,P.Schuck,G.J.Howlett,Self-association of

human apolipoprotein E3 and E4 in the presence and absence of

phopholipid,J.Biol.Chem.275 (2000) 36758–36765.

[55] S.Tarabykina,D.J.Scott,P.Herzyk,T.J.Hill,J.R.Tame,M.

Kriajevska,D.Laﬁtte,P.J.Derrick,G.G.Dodson,N.J.Maitland,

E.M.Lukanidin,I.B.Bronstein,The dimerization interface of the

metastasis-associated protein S100A4 (Mts1):in vivo and in vitro

studies,J.Biol.Chem.276 (2001) 24212–24222.

[56] H.Strauss,R.Misselwitz,D.Labudde,S.Nicklisch,K.Baier,

NblA from Anabaena sp.PCC 7120 is a mostly alpha-helical

protein undergoing reversible trimerization in solution,Eur.J.

Biochem.269 (2002) 4617–4624.

[57] R.J.Lewis,D.J.Scott,J.A.Brannigan,J.C.Ladds,M.A.Cervin,

G.B.Spiegelman,J.G.Hoggett,I.Barak,A.J.Wilkinson,Dimer

formation and transcription activation in the sporulation response

regulator Spo0A,J.Mol.Biol.316 (2002) 235–245.

[58] C.A.Sontag,W.F.Staﬀord,J.J.Correia,A comparison of weight

average and direct boundary ﬁtting of sedimentation velocity data

for indeﬁnite polymerizing systems.Biophys.Chem.(2003),in

press.

[59] S.A.Ali,N.Iwabuchi,T.Matsui,K.Hirota,S.Kidokoro,M.

Arai,K.Kuwajima,P.Schuck,F.Arisaka,Rapid and dynamic

association equilibrium of a molecular chaperone,gp57A,of

bacteriophage T4,Biophys.J.,in press.

[60] J.J.Correia,D.A.Yphantis,in:S.E.Harding,A.J.Rowe,J.C.

Horton (Eds.),Analytical Ultracentrifugation in Biochemistry

and Polymer Science,The Royal Society of Chemistry,Cam-

bridge,UK,1992,pp.231–252.

[61] P.Schuck,Simultaneous radial and wavelength analysis with the

Optima XL-A analytical ultracentrifuge,Progr.Colloid.Polym.

Sci.94 (1994) 1–13.

[62] A.P.Minton,Alternative strategies for the characterization of

associations in multicomponent solutions via measurement of

sedimentation equilibrium,Progr.Colloid Polym.Sci.107 (1997)

11–19.

[63] J.S.Philo,Sedimentation equilibrium analysis of mixed associa-

tions using numerical constraints to impose mass or signal

conservation,Methods Enzymol.321 (2000) 100–120.

[64] W.F.Staﬀord,Boundary analysis in sedimentation transport

experiments:a procedure for obtaining sedimentation coeﬃcient

distributions using the time derivative of the concentration proﬁle,

Anal.Biochem.203 (1992) 295–301.

[65] J.S.Philo,A method for directly ﬁtting the time derivative of

sedimentation velocity data and an alternative algorithm for

calculating sedimentation coeﬃcient distribution functions,Anal.

Biochem.279 (2000) 151–163.

[66] P.Schuck,P.Rossmanith,Determination of the sedimentation

coeﬃcient distribution by least-squares boundary modeling,

Biopolymers 54 (2000) 328–341.

[67] P.Schuck,Size distribution analysis of macromolecules by

sedimentation velocity ultracentrifugation and Lamm equation

modeling,Biophys.J.78 (2000) 1606–1619.

[68] P.Schuck,M.A.Perugini,N.R.Gonzales,G.J.Howlett,D.

Schubert,Size-distribution analysis of proteins by analytical

ultracentrifugation:strategies and application to model systems,

Biophys.J.82 (2002) 1096–1111.

[69] J.Dam,P.Schuck,Calculating sedimentation coeﬃcient distri-

butions by direct modeling of sedimentation velocity proﬁles.

Methods Enzymol.,in press.

[70] P.Barbier,C.Gregoire,F.Devred,M.Sarrazin,V.Peyrot,In

vitro eﬀect of cryptophycin 52 on microtubule assembly and

tubulin:molecular modeling of the mechanism of action of a new

antimitotic drug,Biochemistry 40 (2001) 13510–13519.

[71] D.M.Hatters,R.A.Lindner,J.A.Carver,G.J.Howlett,

The molecular chaperone,a-crystallin,inhibits amyloid forma-

tion by apolipoprotein C-II,J.Biol.Chem.276 (2001) 24212–

24222.

P.Schuck/Analytical Biochemistry 320 (2003) 104–124 123

[72] C.A.MacRaild,D.M.Hatters,L.J.Lawrence,G.J.Howlett,

Sedimentation velocity analysis of ﬂexible macromolecules:self-

association and tangling of amyloid ﬁbrils,Biophys.J.84 (2003)

2562–2569.

[73] Z.F.Taraporewala,P.Schuck,R.F.Ramig,L.Silvestri,J.T.

Patton,Analysis of a temperature-sensitive mutant rotavirus

indicates that NSP2 octamers are the functional form of the

protein,J.Virol.76 (2002) 7082–7093.

[74] D.M.Hatters,L.Wilson,B.W.Atcliﬀe,T.D.Mulhern,N.Guzzo-

Pernell,G.J.Howlett,Sedimentation analysis of novel DNA

structures formed by homo-oligonucleotides,Biophys.J.81 (2001)

371–381.

[75] K.E.van Holde,W.O.Weischet,Boundary analysis of sedimen-

tation velocity experiments with monodisperse and paucidisperse

solutes,Biopolymers 17 (1978) 1387–1403.

[76] J.-M.Claverie,H.Dreux,R.Cohen,Sedimentation of generalized

systems of interacting particles.I.Solution of systems of complete

Lamm equations,Biopolymers 14 (1975) 1685–1700.

[77] A.Solovyova,P.Schuck,L.Costenaro,C.Ebel,Non-ideality by

sedimentation velocity of halophilic malate dehydrogenase in

complex solvents,Biophys.J.81 (2001) 1868–1880.

[78] T.M.Laue,B.D.Shah,T.M.Ridgeway,S.L.Pelletier,in:S.E.

Harding,A.J.Rowe,J.C.Horton (Eds.),Analytical Ultracentrif-

ugation in Biochemistry and Polymer Science,The Royal Society

of Chemistry,Cambridge,1992,pp.90–125.

[79] P.R.Bevington,D.K.Robinson,Data Reduction and Error

Analysis for the Physical Sciences,Mc-Graw Hill,New York,

1992.

[80] W.H.Press,S.A.Teukolsky,W.T.Vetterling,B.P.Flannery,

Numerical Recipes in C,University Press,Cambridge,1992.

[81] M.L.Johnson,M.Straume,in:T.M.Schuster,T.M.Laue (Eds.),

Modern Analytical Ultracentrifugation,Birkh

€

aauser,Boston,

1994,pp.37–65.

[82] J.Edelstein,H.Schachman,Simultaneous determination of

partial speciﬁc volumes and molecular weights with microgram

quantities,J.Biol.Chem.242 (1967) 306–311.

[83] D.Noy,J.R.Calhoun,J.D.Lear,Direct analysis of protein

sedimentation equilibrium in detergent solutions without density

matching.Anal.Biochem.,(2003),in press.

[84] P.Schuck,Z.Taraporewala,P.McPhie,J.T.Patton,Rotavirus

nonstructural protein NSP2 self-assembles into octamers that

undergo ligand-induced conformational changes,J.Biol.Chem.

276 (2000) 9679–9687.

[85] K.A.McDonnell,B.Imperiali,Oligomeric beta(beta)(alpha)

miniprotein motifs:pivotal role of single hinge residue in

determining the oligomeric state,J.Am.Chem.Soc.124 (2002)

428–433.

[86] J.Garcia De La Torre,M.L.Huertas,B.Carrasco,Calculation of

hydrodynamic properties of globular proteins from their atomic-

level structure,Biophys.J.78 (2000) 719–730.

[87] M.Rocco,B.Spotorno,R.R.Hantgan,Modeling the alpha IIb

beta 3 integrin solution conformation,Protein Sci.2 (1993) 2154–

2166.

[88] L.O.Narhi,R.Rosenfeld,J.Talvenheimo,S.J.Prestrelski,T.

Arakawa,J.W.Lary,C.G.Kolvenbach,R.Hecht,T.Boone,J.A.

Miller,D.A.Yphantis,Comparison of the biophysical character-

istics of human brain-derived neurotrophic factor,neurotrophin-

3,and nerve growth factor,J.Biol.Chem.268 (1993) 13309–

13317.

[89] L.M.Gilbert,G.A.Gilbert,Sedimentation velocity measurement

of protein association,Methods Enzymol.27 (1973) 273–296.

[90] D.J.Winzor,R.Tellam,L.W.Nichol,Determination of the

asymptotic shapes of sedimentation velocity patterns for revers-

ibly polymerizing solutes,Arch.Biochem.Biophys.178 (1977)

327–332.

[91] M.Dishon,G.H.Weiss,D.A.Yphantis,Numerical simulations of

the Lamm equation:III.Velocity centrifugation,Biopolymers 5

(1967) 697–713.

[92] J.Vinograd,R.Bruner,R.Kent,J.Weigle,Band centrifugation of

macromolecules and viruses in self-generating density gradients,

Proc.Nat.Acad.Sci.USA 49 (1963).

[93] J.Lebowitz,M.Teale,P.Schuck,Analytical band centrifugation

of proteins and protein complexes,Biochem.Soc.Transact.26

(1998) 745–749.

[94] D.Schubert,E.Huber,S.Lindenthal,K.Mulzer,P.Schuck,The

relationships between the oligomeric structure and the functions

of human erythrocyte band 3 protein:the functional unit for the

binding of ankyrin,hemoglobin and aldolase and for anion

transport,Progr.Cell Res.2 (1992) 209–217.

[95] J.S.Philo,R.Rosenfeld,T.Arakawa,J.Wen,L.O.Narhi,

Refolding of brain-derived neurotrophic factor from guanidine

hydrochloride:kinetic trapping in a collapsed form which is

incompetent for dimerization,Biochemistry 32 (1993) 10812–

10818.

[96] M.Johnson,D.A.Yphantis,Instability in pressure-dependent

sedimetnation of monomer-polymer systems,Biopolymers 12

(1973) 2477–2490.

[97] W.F.Harrington,G.Kegeles,Pressure eﬀects in ultracentrifu-

gation of interacting systems,Methods Enzymol.27 (1973)

106–345.

124 P.Schuck/Analytical Biochemistry 320 (2003) 104–124

## Comments 0

Log in to post a comment